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

The description discloses that the returned identity is 'offered, not imposed' and explains how the agent should handle it. With only a title annotation (no destructive or read-only hints), the description takes on responsibility for behavioral info. It could mention side effects (none expected) or state that this is a read operation, but the behavioral context is still strong enough to score 4.

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 front-loaded with the key call to action and purpose, but it is somewhat long (five sentences) and includes narrative details ('Lady Whiskerdown', 'key') that could be compressed. Every sentence adds value, but the style is more verbose than necessary for an AI agent.

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 (1 optional enum parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to call it, how to use the returned data, and how it relates to sibling tools. No gaps remain for the agent to misunderstand.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 'scope' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly describe 'scope', the context of 'work', 'personal', 'all' is intuitive given the tool's purpose of initializing a session. The enum values are self-explanatory and the description's overall clarity reduces ambiguity. A 4 is appropriate as the description provides enough context to infer parameter usage.

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: it initializes a new chat session by returning identity, knowledge scope, tools, and working contract. It specifies when to call it ('FIRST in every new chat') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST in every new chat (VS Code/Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, Codex), before the first substantive answer.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use: 'For anything this Lady Whiskerdown should know, call recall first instead of using general model knowledge.' This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'recall'.

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