init

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, which signals risk, and the description adds specific behaviors (scans, discovers, builds) that go beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose what gets destroyed or modified, such as overwriting existing skill files. Since the annotation already covers the destructive nature, the description is not misleading but lacks additional safety context.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add specific details. Every word adds value with no repetition or fluff, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main actions but omits details about the result or side effects (e.g., what files are created, how the bridge parameter affects behavior). The destructive annotation and schema fill some gaps, but the description is not fully complete on its own.

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?

The only parameter 'bridge' has full schema coverage with a descriptive comment, so the schema already explains it. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb and resource ('Initialize superskill for the current project') and adds specific actions (scans codebase, discovers skills, builds knowledge graph), making it distinct from siblings like 'skill_install' or 'search'. It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'superskill' command.

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 phrase 'for the current project' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'skill_install' or 'learn'. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated, so it meets the baseline for implied usage.

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