workflow_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that project_type can be defaulted via env and that from_migration detects existing files, but does not explain side effects like file creation or idempotency on re-initialization. The description adds some context but is not exhaustive.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence and an Args section that lists parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description covers all parameters and mentions env defaults, but it does not address edge cases like re-initialization or prerequisites. It is sufficient for typical usage but lacks some contextual depth.

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 does thoroughly. It explains all three parameters: project_type (greenfield/evolution, env default), from_migration (detect and migrate), and project_dir (defaults to working directory). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Initialize') and resource ('delivery workflow') and clarifies the project directory scope. It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_resume by focusing on new initialization, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

The description implies usage for starting a new workflow and mentions project_type can be left empty for intake, but it does not contrast with sibling tools like workflow_resume or workflow_detect, nor does it specify when not to use this tool.

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