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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It doesn't say whether this is read-only, whether it generates code or returns text, what it expects from the environment, or what the guide contains.

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 single line is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The only content beyond the name is the parenthetical '(guide)', which barely 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?

For a namespaced, cross-platform guide tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the bootstrap guide covers and what the agent receives. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to tell this apart from ten near-identical siblings.

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 100% and there is only one optional string parameter, whose role ('Optional topic to locate in the guide') is fully documented in the schema. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 restates the tool name ('room.bootstrap') and tacks on '(guide)', which is essentially a tautology. It signals that the output is some kind of guide, but never states what bootstrapping a room entails or what the agent gets back, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like room.flow.explain or integration.plan.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance whatsoever: no trigger conditions, no prerequisites, no mention of when another tool (e.g. room.lifecycle.plan, integration.plan) is the better choice. The one optional 'query' parameter is the only hint that the output is searchable guidance.

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