init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that rules are installed and emitted to companion files, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing configurations are modified irreversibly) or the exact return value. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks detail on consequences.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loads the primary action. Every sentence adds value: stating the action, listing examples, giving default behavior, and providing pairing advice. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and behavior for a simple setup tool. It lacks details about the return value (e.g., success status, list of installed rules) and potential side effects, making it incomplete for full transparency.

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 already covers the `force` parameter with a description. The tool description adds context: 'Pass force=true to overwrite same-named rules,' which clarifies the effect beyond the schema's 'Overwrite existing starter rules.' This adds meaningful nuance.

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 installs a starter guardrail pack with specific examples (protect main, block rm -rf, etc.) and explains it emits rules to companion files. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `save_rule` (individual rules) and `audit` (checking) by focusing on initial setup.

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 clear usage context: 'Zero-config protection on day one' and advises pairing with `install-hooks`. It mentions the `force` parameter for overwriting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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