init_project

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool is based on 'Spec-Driven Development' and generates specific document types (需求分析/技术设计/任务拆解). The parameter description for `project_root` further details file creation behavior and path restrictions. This adds value beyond the annotations, though the description itself could be more explicit about 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 two sentences long, front-loads the key use case, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: usage trigger, methodology, and output content. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 explains the tool's output type (specification document with sections) but does not specify the return format (e.g., file path, text content, or JSON). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns to the caller. The parameter `project_root` is well-documented, but the overall completeness is lacking for a tool that generates documents without explicit output guidance.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% – all parameters have descriptions. The `input` parameter description explains the allowed format (one-sentence or short description), `project_name` provides a default value, and `project_root` has a detailed explanation of path resolution and edge cases. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '当用户提供一句话需求时使用' (use when user provides a one-sentence requirement) and '生成完整的项目规格文档' (generate complete project spec doc). It identifies the action (analyze requirement and generate documents) and context (initial project clarification). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `init_project_context` or `start_product`, which could be confused for similar use cases.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('当用户提供一句话需求时使用', '适合项目初期的需求澄清和规划'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., `init_project_context` for adding context to existing projects). No explicit exclusions or guidance on choosing between this and similar tools.

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