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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ChiefLab is 'stateful and re-summonable' and can recover state even after lost conversations or IDE switches. It also details the aggregation of multiple data types and the bootCard structure, providing useful behavioral context beyond a simple status fetch.

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 a high-level label 'SESSION-RECOVERY · FIRST CALL' and then provides structured details. It is relatively dense but each sentence contributes: return format, aggregated data, stateful recovery, and a usage decision. No word is wasted, though the length could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the bootCard structure and its components (headline, priority, cards[], next). It also covers the aggregation list and recovery behavior, plus a decision rule for handling unrelated loops. For a status tool with this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how projectName and currentRepoContext factor into the recovery decision ('compare boot cards to currentRepoContext/projectName'). This enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly identifies this as 'SESSION-RECOVERY · FIRST CALL' and specifies exactly what it returns (a bootCard with headline, priority, cards[], next). It distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as the first call to recover the workspace state. The verb 'recovers' and resource 'ChiefLab workspace business state' confirm a clear purpose.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'FIRST CALL when a session starts and the user mentions launch / users / growth / customers / metrics / revenue / marketing / what next / shipping.' It also gives a when-not condition: 'if the open loop is unrelated, start a fresh launch instead of resuming stale work.' This goes beyond a basic context by offering a decision rule.

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