ensure_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it declares idempotency ('safe when already initialized'), the default data location, the MY_LIT_DATA_DIR override, and the artifacts created. It does not explain what `force` does or whether it can destroy/reinitialize existing data, which leaves a real behavioral gap for a mutation-style 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then parameter guidance, then the idempotency guarantee. Sentences earn their place; only the trailing 'Idempotent' line could arguably be folded into the opening.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the config/DB/PDF and override details are covered. However, with zero annotations and an unexplained `force` parameter, an agent cannot know whether force overwrites or wipes an existing .my-lit directory.

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. It adequately explains project_root ('absolute path of the workspace/repo') and data_dir/the env var, but `force` is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of three parameters semantically undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create project-scoped .my-lit') plus the exact contents it manages (config, DB, PDFs), and the conditional 'if missing' scopes it precisely. Nothing here could be confused with the metric/search/seed siblings.

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?

'Call this first in a new project' gives an explicit when-to-use trigger, which is the key routing signal for an initialization tool. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but for a bootstrap tool with no sibling overlap that is a minor omission.

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