Get First Run Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully defines the semantics ('true exactly when zero profiles exist') and explains the caller's intended use, making it clear this is a read-only status check. No side effects or hidden mutations are implied.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core meaning is front-loaded in the first sentence and the orchestration context occupies only the second. Every word contributes useful information.

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 status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent exactly what the boolean means, when to call the tool, and what action to take based on the result. No critical information is missing.

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 fully covers the input space (trivially 100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 states a precise predicate: reports true exactly when zero profiles exist, making the tool's function unambiguous. The verb 'report' and resource 'Nanites first-run initialization' are specific, and the description frames it as a session-start check rather than a configuration or management operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 says the orchestrator calls this once at session start, giving a clear invocation context. It also prescribes the follow-up action when true ('runs the /nanites-new-profile flow'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but none are obvious, so the context is clear.

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