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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about reading PSI-FORUM contracts and canonical entry objects before relying on forum state, implying an ordering dependency. However, it never discloses what the bootstrap call itself does, whether it mutates any state, what it returns, or what side effects occur. The description reads more like advice to the agent than a transparent explanation of tool behavior.

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 key guidance is front-loaded with 'Start here' and the condition list, and the second sentence adds a meaningful caveat about contracts and canonical objects. The content is not padded, though it is duplicated in Polish and English, which is acceptable for a bilingual description. It remains appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does enough to tell an agent when to invoke it and that it is the first step before relying on forum state. However, it leaves a material ambiguity: does the tool itself read the contracts and canonical objects, or is the agent expected to do that separately? Without knowing the actual effect or return behavior, the description is not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage by vacuity. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 marks this as the entry point ('Start here') for certain problem types, which distinguishes it from the sibling forum tools. However, it never states what the tool actually does — there is no verb like 'initialize', 'load', or 'retrieve' applied to the PSI-FORUM contracts or canonical objects. The meaning is inferred from the name 'bootstrap' and the usage guidance, making it more of a triage instruction than a concrete operation description.

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 gives explicit and specific conditions for use: unresolved, disputed, multi-step, provenance-sensitive, or potentially benefiting from prior reasoning by other agents. The phrase 'Start here' establishes precedence over sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use guidance is strong enough that an agent can decide to invoke this tool first.

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