create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effects: creating specific subfolders and files, and allows overriding the default scaffold via the structure parameter. However, it does not mention behavior if the project already exists or any potential failure modes.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by an Arg list. It is somewhat long due to enumerating default folders, but that detail is relevant. It is concise enough while providing essential context.

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 description fully compensates for the lack of annotations and thin schema by explaining the scaffolding process, defaults, parameter effects, and included files. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It is complete for a create tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the Args section adds significant meaning to every parameter: name validation rules, structure's role in replacing the default scaffold, description's use in README/CLOUD.md, and include_docker's effect. This far exceeds the schema's minimal definitions.

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 creates a new project inside the workspace with a conventional folder structure and additional files. This specific verb+resource is distinct from siblings like create_file and create_directory, which are lower-level operations.

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 usage context is implied (for scaffolding a new project with standard folders and files), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_directory or generate_readme. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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