init

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new project.' and does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing files), required permissions, or whether it installs dependencies. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates resources.

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, five-word sentence that conveys the primary purpose with zero waste. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable. While brevity could hide necessary detail, that is accounted for in other dimensions, and this sentence earns 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?

The tool has four optional parameters and an output schema, which provide moderate context. The schema and sibling set suggest this is a project initializer for Python tools. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., what files are created, whether it runs commands) and does not explain how init relates to other tools like add or remove. Given the schema richness, the description is just adequate but not complete.

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% description coverage for its four parameters, including 'Optional project name', 'Optional target path', 'app or lib' template, and 'Optional Python version request'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already does heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new project.' clearly states the core action and resource (new project). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like build or run, though it does not explicitly call out any scope or differentiation. Overall, it is a clear, concise purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The schema and sibling names imply it is for initializing Python projects, but the description itself gives no usage direction.

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