initialize_context_master

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool auto-creates files (a side effect) and that it is mandatory to chain with setup_project_context. It also mentions the specific file cm-ai-infos.yaml. While it does not cover error scenarios or idempotency, it provides solid transparency about the tool's actions and side effects.

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 appropriately sized for the critical imperative it conveys. It is front-loaded with 'MANDATORY STEP 1' and each sentence carries essential guidance about the sequence, constraints, and automatic file creation. No unnecessary wording; the emphasis serves a legitimate operational purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simple interface (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers the necessary context: when to use, what it does, what to do next, and what parameters are needed. The schema already documents the parameter, so the description's focus on process and sequencing makes the tool's usage well-specified for an agent.

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% for the single parameter projectPath, so the schema fully documents its meaning and requiredness. The description adds little beyond the schema, referring to 'the same projectPath' in the follow-up instruction, but it does not provide new semantic details about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Initialize') and resource ('Context Master'). It goes beyond a tautology by explaining that it auto-creates all required files, including cm-ai-infos.yaml, and explicitly positions it as 'STEP 1', distinguishing it from sibling tools like setup_project_context.

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 provides explicit trigger phrases ('init context master' or '/cm-init'), mandates calling this tool first, and gives precise follow-up instructions (immediately call setup_project_context with the same projectPath). It also states what not to do (do not ask for confirmation or manual file creation), offering clear guidance on when and how to use this tool versus the next step.

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