research_bootstrap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what it does ('Load the compact 1200-paper RAG runtime and L0-L5 workflow status') but does not explain side effects, resource intensity, whether it is idempotent, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has operational implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, precisely conveying the tool's purpose in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what 'L0-L5 workflow status' means or how the agent should use this status. It also does not provide context on how this bootstrapping fits with sibling tools. While not incomplete, it would benefit from a brief note on when to call it or what to expect.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing that needs explanation. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and specific resources ('compact 1200-paper RAG runtime' and 'L0-L5 workflow status'), making its function clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like research_rag_query and research_route, which are query/route operations, whereas bootstrap is an initialization action.

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 implies this tool is for bootstrapping or setup, but it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives. It suggests it might be called before other research operations, but there is no explicit 'use this before querying' guidance or mention of when not to use it.

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