Bootstrap RIS worker

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation; the description usefully adds that it creates directories, submits a persistent daemon that polls jobs, and that dryRun defaults to a preview. That dryRun-default safety disclosure is valuable context beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating permissions, idempotency, or re-run 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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence that packs the setup action, the resource, the mechanism, and the dryRun default without waste. Dense but every clause 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 mutating, no-output-schema tool with five params at 20% coverage, the description covers the high-level action and the safety default but leaves the remaining parameter semantics and post-bootstrap state (how to then enqueue/monitor) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 20% (just the profile field), so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It reinforces the dryRun default but says nothing about account, walltime, or pollSeconds (which has a 5-600 range the agent should understand).

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?

States a specific verb (Set up/bootstrap) and resource (per-user RIS worker), and details the two concrete actions: creating control-plane dirs under <workspace>/.risbridge and submitting a low-resource general-cpu daemon. It is clearly the setup tool among the worker siblings (status/cancel/enqueue), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (you bootstrap the worker so it can submit/poll jobs and avoid repeat Duo logins), and the 'dryRun preview by default' note signals a safe first-run pattern. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to ris_worker_status or ris_worker_enqueue, nor stated prerequisites.

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