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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description goes further by disclosing the deterministic output property ('same vault state, same bytes'), the strict ordering requirement, and the anti-fabrication rule ('Charter first, verbatim, never fabricated'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core object and rule, lists contents in a natural reading order, and closes with a deterministic guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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 boot tool with no required parameters and no output schema, this is complete. It tells the agent what will be read, in what order, when to call it, and what property to expect. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both parameters (class and scope) having enums and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, but it doesn't need to because the schema fully documents them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('boot pack'), specifies the action (read it FIRST), and enumerates the exact ordered contents. It also adds the deterministic property ('same vault state, same bytes'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from generic retrieval.

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 explicitly prescribes when to use the tool: 'Read it FIRST on every wake.' This is clear contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like retrieve or handoff, but the every-wake-first instruction is strong enough that an agent can infer this is the mandatory entry point.

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

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

Annotations only signal that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it appends to an append-only ledger, stages a note, and has a downstream effect (next bootpack inherits it). It does not fully detail all side effects or return behavior, but it goes beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then policy. Every clause earns its place and the doctrine is memorable guidance rather than filler.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what happens, the downstream effect, and the recommended usage threshold. The only notable gaps are naming sibling tools for disambiguation and explaining the trigger enum values, neither of which is critical.

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?

With only 67% schema description coverage and trigger lacking a description, the description compensates by mapping telemetry to usage %, trigger, and what was cut. usage and cut are already documented in the schema, and the description adds the unifying telemetry framing, though it adds little detail to the trigger enum.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Record a session boundary') and details exactly what the tool does: appends telemetry to the append-only handoffs ledger and stages a handoff note that the next bootpack inherits. This clearly separates it from siblings like retrieve and bootpack by focusing on the boundary-recording action.

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 doctrine line gives concrete when-to-use guidance: hand off at ~88-90% and do not ride to the wall, so an agent knows the intended invocation point. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false Score. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the payload is budgeted and truncated/downgraded to fit, that scope is partition-walled, that payload size is logged to Foresight counters, and that results are never raw dumps. This materially enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 two dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add essential behavioral details. Every clause adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description reasonably explains the return shape: mn:// pointers plus snippet renditions, never raw dumps. It also covers budget truncation, scope constraints, and logging. It stops short of explaining edge cases like empty results or what rid means, but for a retrieval tool with rich annotations and schema, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that budget controls payload truncation/downgrade and that scope is partition-walled. It also clarifies that results are scored and budgeted, which relates to the budget parameter. The k parameter is not explicitly addressed, but the schema provides range and default context.

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 verb and resource: retrieve canonical, keyholder-approved memory relevant to a query. It also distinguishes the tool's behavior from a general memory lookup by specifying scored, budgeted payloads with mn:// pointers and snippet renditions. This clearly separates it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when canonical memory relevant to a query is needed segments. It also provides a usage instruction ('Cite the returned rid when the action resolves'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, missing the top tier of guidance.

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

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the note lands in _staging/, never touches canon, requires provenance, returns the staged id/salience/duplicate flag, and refuses malformed or paperless notes. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and no contradiction exists.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by location/side-effect constraints and return/refusal behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully lists the return values and refusal conditions. The nested input schema carries the parameter detail. It could more fully explain what a duplicate flag or salience means, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats that provenance is required and that paperless notes are refused—both already implied by the schema. It adds no meaningful guidance about the note object, required fields, partitions, or staged-output semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stage a memory candidate for KEYHOLDER review.' It also clarifies scope by stating this is 'the only write verb' and that the note 'lands in _staging/' and 'never touches canon,' clearly distinguishing it from its read-related siblings.

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 clear context: use this when you need to stage a memory candidate for review, and it is the only write verb among the siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'only write verb' framing gives strong routing guidance.

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