innoslate_get_started

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the call surfaces (workflow, login state, file destinations) without contradicting those hints, though it omits any note on output format or freshness of the login state.

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, zero waste, and the imperative "Start here." is front-loaded so the agent reads the routing cue first. Nothing to trim.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does name the three returned payloads. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about how the returned workflow should be used next.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; per the rubric a zero-parameter tool earns the baseline of 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure.

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 clear purpose for a zero-parameter bootstrap tool: it returns the step-by-step workflow, the current login state, and where files go. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like innoslate_status or innoslate_initialize, which likely overlap on login/workflow information, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Start here." is an explicit, unambiguous usage cue telling the agent to call this first before other tools. However, it names no alternative or condition for skipping it, and does not clarify its relationship to innoslate_status or innoslate_initialize, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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