spawn_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals key behaviors: creating .gitignore to protect secrets, creating directories, pulling a spec into game.json, materializing scripts, and fetching docs. However, it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing files, requiring an existing project, or network dependencies. This is a moderate level of transparency for a scaffold tool.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses concise step enumeration. It contains no filler, but the long list of actions could be more readable if split into bullet points. Still, every word contributes.

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 tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main scaffold actions but omits prerequisites, return behavior, and error conditions. It is adequate but lacks full contextual depth for an agent to anticipate all outcomes.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'projectDir', including its default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 scaffolds a Spawn game project, with specific resources: gitignore, world/ + scripts/, game.json, and .spawn/ docs. It uses the specific verb 'Scaffold' and lists concrete actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spawn_create_game or spawn_docs.

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 implies when to use the tool: when setting up a new Spawn project scaffold. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It could improve by contrasting with similar siblings like spawn_bootstrap, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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