new_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It states the filesystem scope ('Writes inside the data directories only'), the side effect ('Downloads the cookiecutter from GitHub on first use'), and the naming behavior with a concrete example. This gives an agent meaningful expectations beyond the schema.

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 tight and front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies the key parameters with an example, and the third discloses the important download side effect. There is no filler.

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 description is strong on required parameters and behavioral side effects, but it leaves gaps: no return/output details, no explanation of the `template` and `directory` parameters, and no definition of what 'data directories' concretely means. Since there are no annotations and no output schema to compensate, these gaps matter for correct invocation.

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 description meaningfully explains the two required parameters: `project` is the folder, `experiment` is the lookup value, and it shows how the experiment name gets date-prefixed. However, the optional `template` and `directory` parameters are not described at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Create a batch project from a template', and anchors it to the `cellpy new` workflow. It also clarifies the roles of `project` and `experiment`, which helps distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `list_templates` or `collect`.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would make a sibling tool more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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