init_bulletin

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency, no-overwrite behavior, automatic detection order for project, and the side effect of creating a .board-project marker in non-git directories plus persistent project binding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized into clear sections and front-loads the initialization purpose. The only slight excess is the metaphor about installing a pre-work board for the AI, which adds flavor rather than actionable detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and both parameters are optional, the description covers the necessary behaviors: file creation, idempotency, project detection, and the non-git marker side effect. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does. It explains that project is optional with a fallback detection chain (git remote, marker file, folder name), and that include_claude adds a CLAUDE.md for Claude Code.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens by naming the tool role (initialization, first call on each terminal) and specifies the two concrete artifacts it creates: AGENTS.md and a shared announcement file. This clearly distinguishes init_bulletin from the operational sibling tools like send_note or get_board.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit trigger (first call when a terminal connects to the mailbox) and explicitly reassures repeated use because the operation is idempotent. It does not name excluded cases or compare with alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this setup role.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.