Delimit Context Init

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to re-cover those. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying side effects: creates the venture directory and metadata files via ai.context_fs.init_context, and explicitly states it is safe to call repeatedly. This is meaningful additional behavioral disclosure.

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 compact, organized with clear headings, and front-loads the core purpose before usage guidance and side effects. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, existing output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is complete. It explains when to use it, when not to use it, the side effects, the versioning model, and the fact that it is safe to rerun. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a default value and its own description ('Venture/project namespace key'). The tool description reinforces the venture context but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific action: 'Initialize a context filesystem namespace for a venture,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this tool from delimit_memory_* and delimit_context_read, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without additional investigation.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'once per venture, the first time you want to persist cross-session/cross-model context.' It also gives clear when-not-to-use conditions with named alternatives (delimit_memory_store for single-session memory, delimit_context_read for reading artifacts), plus a sibling contrast explaining the venture-scoped and versioned nature.

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