wolbarg_init_required

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

The description discloses that the tool returns instructions for initialization, which is appropriate for a non-destructive info tool. However, without annotations, it could provide more detail about what the setup instructions entail or any side effects.

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, very concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of parameters/output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and action required. However, it could benefit from briefly mentioning what the output looks like (e.g., 'returns text instructions').

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it does not provide extra context about the input schema (which is empty). A score of 4 reflects that it adequately handles the lack of parameters.

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's purpose: to provide setup instructions for Wolbarg initialization. It uses a specific verb ('call this tool for setup instructions') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with other functionalities like briefing or claiming scope.

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?

It explicitly instructs the user to call the tool for setup instructions, then run a specific command (npx wolbarg init) and reload MCP. This provides clear sequential usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.

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