memory_bootstrap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the side effects of scanning and seeding memory, and it clarifies the required 'root' param. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, what happens if the lobe already exists, or if it modifies files in the repo. This is partial transparency sufficient for basic use but not comprehensive for a mutating tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, includes a helpful JSON example, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides distinct value: when to use, what it does, and an example.

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 covers when to use, what it does, the required parameter condition, and the outcome. However, it lacks details about edge cases (e.g., running when lobe exists, budgetMB behavior, response format) and does not have an output schema. For a bootstrap tool with this complexity, it is nearly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description does add value by restating the conditional requirement for 'root' and providing a concrete example, but it does not explain 'budgetMB' beyond the schema, and the example only covers two of the three params. The added semantic clarity is modest, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: it scans repo structure, README, and build system to create a named lobe and seed initial memory. It uses specific verbs like 'scans' and 'create' and references a specific resource ('lobe'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like brief, recall, or learn which operate on an existing lobe.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When no lobe exists for a project — run this before any other tool.' It also states the benefit of using it ('After bootstrapping, all other tools become available for that lobe'), implicitly guiding the agent to use this before alternatives. This is strong, actionable usage context.

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