Bootstrap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what categories of state the briefing pulls in and its legacy/duplicate status relative to cortex_start. It does not mention cost or latency, which is the only notable omission.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, why the alias exists, and the migration path. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema, complete annotation coverage, and fully documented parameters, most structured needs are met, and the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the deprecation/migration story. A brief note on how the task parameter shapes results would make it fully self-contained, but the gap is minor.

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%, and the schema already explains both task and project, including that an empty project lists known projects. The description says nothing further about the parameters, so the schema does all the semantic work — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (a start-of-conversation briefing) and enumerates exactly what it returns: user identity, working preferences, project notes, tasks, and last session. It also names the sibling cortex_start as identical, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing rules: use this only because existing project instructions say 'call bootstrap', while new setups should call cortex_start instead. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are stated, not implied.

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