crewai_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses CLI, creates scaffolding in a workspace, and skips provider prompts. However, it doesn't mention behavior on existing projects, error handling, or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 task complexity and that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, creation steps, and post-creation key configuration. It could mention return values or success indicators but is largely complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the --skip_provider flag, the need to configure API keys, and that provider sets up non-interactively. This adds value for the provider parameter.

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 creates a new CrewAI project using CLI and generates standard scaffolding. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on agents, tasks, or running flows.

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 mentions the --skip_provider flag and the need to manually configure API keys. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use this tool, the context is clear and no sibling tools overlap in purpose.

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