get_bootstrap_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns questions to ask the user, that answers feed into `bootstrap_context`, and that `project_path` triggers merging custom YAML questions. It does not cover error behavior or return structure, but the main behavioral traits are present.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow and optional behavior follow naturally. The repeated word 'pass' is slightly redundant but each sentence 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?

The description gives a clear workflow and explains the optional `project_path` behavior, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not explicitly specify the shape of the returned question set or how invalid `target` values are handled, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: `target` is currently restricted to 'project' and maps to `.context/project.md`, and `project_path` controls whether repo-supplied `.project-bootstrap-questions.yaml` questions are merged in.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get the interview question set for a bootstrap artifact'. It also differentiates the tool from the sibling `bootstrap_context` by explaining that answers are passed to that tool.

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 describes the intended workflow: ask the user each question, then pass the answers to `bootstrap_context`. It also explains when `project_path` should be supplied to merge repo-supplied custom questions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool.

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