mk_dir

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says the tool is removed. It does not disclose what happens when invoked, whether it has side effects, or what the 'Removed' state means for callers (e.g., error or no-op).

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 very short, but it is under-specification rather than well-structured. The phrase 'Removed:' is abrupt and the remainder is not a clear functional description, so the brevity does not earn 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?

Given a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context about the tool's purpose, behavior, or return value. It is not complete enough for an agent to correctly select or invoke this tool.

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 schema defines a single 'path' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions 'path' or any arguments, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Removed:' which indicates the tool is deprecated rather than describing a function. The phrase 'initialize a project once; server owns artifact directories' is ambiguous about what the tool actually does, and does not clearly identify a verb+resource.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The 'Removed:' prefix implies the tool should not be used, but no alternative or context is given, leaving the agent without direction.

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