bootstrap_project

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 the mutation behavior ('Auto-generate') and lists specific generated artifacts, but doesn't clarify whether existing files are overwritten or if the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a file-generating tool.

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 that front-loads the action and lists examples without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

The tool is simple (one optional param) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose and generated artifacts. However, it could mention the 'path' parameter and any side effects (e.g., overwriting) to be fully complete, but it's largely adequate.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' with a default, but the description provides zero coverage (0% schema_description_coverage). Since the description doesn't mention this parameter, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanation, even though the parameter is self-explanatory by name.

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 ('Auto-generate') and resource ('template files and directories'), and lists concrete outputs (PRD, milestones, active tasks, config yaml). It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing onboarding an 'unknown repository', which is not covered by generate_handoff or generate_project_brain.

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 'to instantly onboard an unknown repository' provides explicit context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, such as distinguishing from 'adopt_existing_project' or 'create_project_workspace', which would be helpful given the large sibling set.

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