init_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions file creation and overwrite behavior (skip vs. overwrite). However, it does not specify whether the tool replaces the entire .project/ directory or what happens if it already exists without the overwrite flag, which could be important for the agent.

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 a single, focused sentence followed by a list of files, with the usage guidance appended. Every sentence is relevant and front-loaded with the core 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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and behavior reasonably well. It does not describe the return value, but that is acceptable for a setup tool with no output schema. The file list is helpful for the agent to understand the impact.

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%, but the description adds value by linking parameters to the files created and stating that 'project_name' is used in headers and metadata, which goes beyond the schema's description. The overwrite parameter's behavior is also clarified.

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 explicitly states it 'Initializes the .project/ directory with all standard files' and lists the specific files created. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_or_update_index or add_decision, which operate on individual components rather than bootstrapping the entire structure.

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 includes 'Use this to bootstrap a new project with proper structure,' providing a clear when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes this somewhat implicit.

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