Get the project setup

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

The description adds a concrete behavioral constraint beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: the pre-paint theme script must be inline and synchronous or the page shows a flash of the wrong theme. This is actionable knowledge an agent would otherwise not have. There is no contradiction with 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 sentence, front-loaded with the overall purpose, then a tightly packed list of contents. The parenthetical warning is dense but relevant and earns its place. No repetition or filler; it could be split for readability, but it is appropriately compact for the information it carries.

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?

With one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description conveys both what is returned and a key integration constraint. It doesn't describe the exact return format or how the parts are delimited, which would be helpful, but for a simple get-setup tool this is sufficient. The main gap is no output-structure hints, and that gap is minor because the contents list already sets expectations.

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 describes `part` 100% with enum and a default note, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping enum values to friendlier terms (utility layer → utilities, theme control markup → theme-control, pre-paint theme script → theme-script), which helps an agent understand the semantic intent of each part. It doesn't explain the `all` default, but the schema already covers that.

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 defines a specific bundle: HTML scaffold, pre-paint theme script, reset, utility layer, prose styles, theme-control markup, framed as 'Everything needed to start'. This clearly distinguishes it from more targeted sibling geters like get_layout or get_tokens, though it doesn't mention any sibling by name. The verb is supplied by the tool name/title, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

'Everything needed to start' gives clear situational context: call this tool when bootstrapping a project with the full setup. It doesn't name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but it still tells the agent when this tool is the right choice better than a purely generic description would.

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