init

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds operational details (detects stack, indexes catalog, builds graph) and a useful negative boundary ('Does not scrape skills.sh'). It doesn't spell out that bridge replaces native skill files, though that appears in the parameter schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the main action front-loaded and the negative boundary expressed in a single clause. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-optional-param tool with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and an important non-behavior. It could add sibling routing or side-effect detail, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the boolean bridge parameter is already fully documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb ('Initialize'), resource ('superskill'), and scope ('current project'), then enumerates concrete steps: detects stack, indexes the in-repo catalog, builds the knowledge graph. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like knowledge_rebuild, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Implies first-time setup for the current project and explicitly rules out scraping skills.sh, but gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as knowledge_rebuild or generate_context, and no prerequisites.

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