onboard_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the actions performed (creates a config file, installs git hooks, starts indexing), which is meaningful transparency for a mutation tool. However, it omits critical traits such as whether it overwrites existing config, idempotency on repeat runs, and side effects on repo state beyond hooks.

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 core action list is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence. The trailing 'One command to set everything up!' is slightly promotional filler, but it is short and does reinforce the composite value proposition, so little is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on the 'what' but thin on operational edge cases: it does not state overwrite behavior, idempotency, or expected duration. The schema fully covers the two parameters, so no return-value explanation is needed, but the behavioral gaps keep it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'install git hooks' loosely maps to enableGitHooks but adds no syntax, default, or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so no uplift is warranted.

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 names a specific verb+resource (onboarding a project) and enumerates the concrete steps: language auto-detect, config creation, git hook installation, and initial indexing. This makes clear it is a composite bootstrap tool, distinguishing it implicitly from narrower siblings like index_codebase or enable_git_hooks. However, it never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 'for a new project' implies the usage context, and 'One command to set everything up' hints it is the convenience alternative to running the individual steps. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance (e.g., 'for an already-indexed repo, use reindex_changed_files instead'), leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.

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