Scaffold the readiness harness into a repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key non-destructive behavior ('Never overwrites existing files') and lists what is written. However, it does not explain what happens if files already exist (fail, skip, or warn), whether permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. This is adequate but not thorough for a mutation tool.

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 a single compact block, front-loading the command and its purpose, then listing outputs and archetypes. It also includes a critical safety note and a follow-up step without unnecessary filler. Slightly dense but well-structured.

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 scaffolding tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it writes, the archetype options, the non-overwrite guarantee, and the human follow-up. It lacks details on error handling or behavior when files already exist, which are minor gaps. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% for both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics for the archetype enum by explaining what each pattern does ('documents → grounded answers' vs 'documents → structured fields'), which is not in the schema. For dir, it does not go beyond the schema's 'absolute path' description, but the added archetype context raises the score above baseline.

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 the verb ('Run groundwork init') and the specific resources written (adapter boundary, redaction config, gold-set templates, GitHub Action, playbook). It also names the two deployment patterns, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on checking or costing rather than scaffolding.

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 the tool is used to scaffold a repo for a deployment pattern, and it notes a follow-up human action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No direct sibling performs scaffolding, so some guidance would help, but the context is implied.

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