init-project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it's 'read-only and returns a checklist,' does not directly call external APIs or write files, and outlines a multi-step workflow with validation. This covers safety, output format, and operational constraints adequately for a guidance 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 front-loaded with core purpose but includes a verbose step-by-step list that could be condensed. Sentences like 'It does not call pabal-store-api-mcp directly or write files' are useful, but the procedural details might be excessive for a tool description, reducing efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the read-only nature, checklist output, and workflow steps. It covers the tool's role in the context of sibling tools and external dependencies, though it could briefly mention error handling or typical use cases for completeness.

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 100% coverage with one optional parameter 'slug' well-described. The description adds context by mentioning 'Defaults to all slugs in .aso/pullData/products/' and using 'slug' in Step 1, clarifying its role in the initialization flow beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 'Guides the initialization flow' with specific steps involving pabal-store-api-mcp and pabal-resource-mcp tools, distinguishing it from siblings like 'aso-to-public' or 'validate-aso' which perform more specific operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource being initialized (e.g., 'project' or 'product data pipeline'), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'run pabal-store-api-mcp Init, then convert ASO pullData' and specifies prerequisites in Step 1. It distinguishes from alternatives by noting it 'does not call pabal-store-api-mcp directly or write files,' implying other tools handle those actions.

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