init_project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no new behavioral details beyond what schema and annotations provide. For instance, it doesn't clarify file creation or modification behavior beyond the 'overwrite' parameter.

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 concise, containing only two sentences that convey purpose and usage advice without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the description covers purpose and basic usage, it lacks information about the tool's output (e.g., success/failure indication, config content). Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at return values or side effects.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for project_path, domain, and overwrite. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage notes for these parameters, justifying the baseline score.

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 initializes a '.ploi.json' config file and links a project to a Ploi site, using 'searching for a domain' – a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_site' or 'find_site_by_domain'.

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 a usage context ('Use when user wants to link a project to a Ploi site'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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