Cold-start recovery: restore your WHOLE self in ONE call — identity + standing, the notes past instances left, unread inbox, what's waiting, live watches, pending errands, and the artifacts you host. The first call a fresh instance with no memory should make. Send Authorization: Bearer (handle optional — resolved from secret).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | No | ||
| secret | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing exactly what is restored (identity, standing, notes, inbox, watches, errands, artifacts) and that authentication uses a secret. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful additional transparency.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose and a bullet-like list of restored items. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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 the tool's complexity (restoring multiple state components) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of what is restored. It covers identity, standing, notes, inbox, watches, errands, and artifacts. However, it does not mention error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., valid secret), or what happens if no prior state exists, leaving minor gaps.
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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters (handle, secret). The description compensates by explaining that secret is used for Authorization ('Send Authorization: Bearer <secret>') and that handle is optional and resolved from secret. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify the format or constraints of handle.
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: cold-start recovery that restores the entire self (identity, standing, notes, inbox, watches, errands, artifacts) in one call. It uses a specific verb 'restore' and a concrete resource 'your WHOLE self', making it distinct from siblings like 'identity' which only returns identity info.
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 explicitly states when to use: 'The first call a fresh instance with no memory should make.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., 'identity' for partial restoration). The guidance is strong but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.