Get the project setup

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral requirement: the pre-paint theme script 'must be inline and synchronous, or you get a flash of the wrong theme.' It also details exactly what content is included, adding substantial value beyond the annotations.

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?

One dense, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary purpose and uses every clause to convey necessary information. The parenthetical warning is valuable and not extraneous.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the full list of included parts, and a critical deployment nuance. The `part` parameter's default and enum values are already in the schema, so the description only needs to clarify what each piece is. It does not describe the exact output format, but for a setup-bundle tool this is nonessential.

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 schema only provides a generic 'which part to return' description and bare enum values. The tool description maps those enum values to concrete, meaningful content (HTML scaffold, theme script, reset, utilities, prose, theme control) and adds an important constraint for the theme-script part, enriching the parameter semantics.

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 the tool returns 'Everything needed to start' and enumerates the exact contents: HTML scaffold, pre-paint theme script, reset, utility layer, prose styles, and theme control markup. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on components, patterns, or tokens.

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 phrase 'Everything needed to start' clearly indicates this tool is for initial project setup. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for a starting-point utility.

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