bootstrap_internal_agent

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=true. Description adds behavioral details like preparing git worktree and emitting plans, but does not fully explain side effects (e.g., file modifications, state changes) or prerequisites.

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?

Single-sentence description front-loads key actions but becomes a run-on list. Could be split for readability, but overall efficient for the number of actions covered.

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 15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and limited description, the tool lacks completeness. Return values (execution plan, reviewer-lane) are mentioned but not detailed, and many parameters remain unexplained.

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 has 15 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter guidance. The agent gets no help interpreting 'source', 'repoPath', 'prepareSandbox', etc., leaving them opaque.

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?

Description uses specific verbs and resources: normalize trigger, construct recall pack, prepare sandbox, emit plan. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'plan_intent' or 'session_primer' by focusing on bootstrapping from external triggers.

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?

Description implies use for initializing sessions from GitHub/Slack/Linear triggers, but no explicit when-not or alternatives. Sibling tools exist for similar purposes (e.g., 'start_handoff', 'session_primer') but are not contrasted.

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