Bootstrap Internal Agent

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description needn't reiterate destructiveness. It adds context about actions (normalizing, constructing, preparing, emitting) but does not disclose side effects like file modifications, permission requirements, or rate limits. The sandbox preparation implies potential file operations, but this is not explicit.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the key actions. It is front-loaded with the main verb 'Normalize' and avoids redundancy. However, it could be split into two sentences for better readability without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the structure of input objects (trigger, thread, task) or what the output plans contain. The agent lacks information to correctly invoke the tool for non-trivial use cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'source' parameter by mentioning trigger types but provides no detail on the other 14 parameters (e.g., repoPath, sandboxRoot, nested objects like trigger, thread, task). The agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description alone.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Normalize', 'construct', 'prepare', 'emit') and identifies key resources (GitHub/Slack/Linear triggers, recall pack, git worktree sandbox, execution and reviewer-lane plan). It distinguishes this bootstrapping tool from siblings by describing a multi-step pipeline rather than a single operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like construct_context_pack, plan_intent, or session_primer. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The agent would need external knowledge to decide.

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