lupa_init

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

No annotations are provided, but the description only mentions non-interactive and default arguments. It does not disclose side effects like file creation, overwriting behavior, or reversibility. For a tool that modifies a project, more behavioral details are needed.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides a critical usage guideline. No unnecessary words.

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 tool that initializes a framework with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'default scaffolding' entails, what files are created, or what the tool returns. More context is needed for safe usage.

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 the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Per rules, baseline is 3.

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 initializes the lupa testing framework with default scaffolding, avoiding interactive prompts. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list/run) by being the initialization tool.

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?

Explicitly states to use this tool instead of running `npx lupa init` via terminal to ensure non-interactive execution and correct arguments. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling tools are distinct enough.

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