memory_bootstrap

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

The description complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing exactly what the call returns: MEMORY.md rules, domain indexes, environment paths, and semantic-search status. It also reinforces the intended one-time usage, which adds behavioral context beyond the bare hints. No contradiction exists with the annotations.

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 compact—two short bilingual sentences—and front-loads the most important instruction ('Call once at session start') before listing the return contents. Every phrase conveys useful information with no filler or redundancy, making it an efficiently structured description.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call it and what categories of data it returns. It does not specify the exact response format, but the listed content categories are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the memory system.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is met, and the description's mention of return contents implicitly indicates that this is a no-input retrieval operation.

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: it is called at session start and returns MEMORY.md rules, all domain indexes, environment paths, and semantic-search status. This concrete verb-resource pairing and explicit return list distinguish it from sibling tools like memory_get or memory_stats, which handle individual operations rather than session initialization.

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 gives an explicit temporal instruction, 'Call once at session start,' which tells the agent when this tool should be used. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the session-start context is a clear and sufficient trigger for this bootstrap operation.

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