wm_init

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the scanning behavior, the safe-default grading policy, the never-auto-cleaned categories, the fail-without-writing behavior when a policy exists, and the destructive implication of force overwriting a hand-tuned policy.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the scaffold analogy aids understanding, and edge cases around existing policies are compressed into one clear condition at the end.

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?

For a tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the generated artifact, the safety profile, prerequisites, failure behavior, and when to set force. No critical information for correct invocation 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?

The lone parameter force is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), including its default and effect. The description adds context about force replacing a hand-tuned policy, but since the schema already documents the semantics, additional value is marginal and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Scaffold the metabolism.json policy file') with an apt git init analogy, and names the resource (metabolism.json) plus the exact behavior (scan workspace, generate G1-G4 grades). It also differentiates itself from siblings like wm_audit and wm_clean by identifying init as the prerequisite step.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this once, when no policy file exists, before the first audit or clean.' It also states the failure mode when a policy already exists and clarifies when force should be used, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's place in the workflow.

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