turingmind_bootstrap_codebase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that nodes are created with blank contracts, skips excluded directories automatically, and supports dry-run preview. It does not mention idempotency, overwriting behavior, or error handling for missing paths, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and 5 fully described parameters, the description is fairly complete. It could mention return values or post-creation effects, but for a bootstrap tool with clear side effects (creating nodes), the provided information is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it suggests dry_run usage and notes automatic skipping of excluded dirs. It does not elaborate on repo or project_path beyond what's in 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 clearly states the tool scans a project directory and auto-creates L2 SpecNodes for each module group. It uses a specific verb ('scan' and 'auto-create') and identifies the resource ('existing project directory' and 'L2 SpecNodes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like turingmind_create_spec_node or turingmind_index_codebase.

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 advises using dry_run=true first to preview without writing to the DB, offering clear guidance for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or which alternative to choose, though the context implies it's for initial bootstrapping.

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