bootstrap_internal_agent

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which is not contradicted by the description. The description lists actions (normalize, construct, prepare, emit) but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or behavioral implications beyond the annotation. Since annotations already signal destructiveness, the description adds minimal value but does not harm transparency.

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 of 30 words that front-loads the main actions. No extraneous information or repetition. Every element earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite the tool having 15 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level summary. It omits return value behavior (important since no output schema exists), parameter formatting, and practical usage context. The description is incomplete for guiding correct invocation, especially given the schema coverage gap.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for its 15 parameters. The description only hints at the 'source' parameter by listing trigger sources but does not explain other critical parameters like repoPath, context, delegationMode, or nested objects. With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate and leaves parameter semantics unclear.

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 normalizes triggers from GitHub/Slack/Linear, constructs a recall pack, prepares a git worktree sandbox, and emits an execution plan. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on other planning or retrieval tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like plan_intent or plan_agent_design_governance exist but are not mentioned, and no conditions or exclusions are given. The usage context is implicit from the trigger sources, but clear guidelines are missing.

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