Read what this agent wakes up knowing

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.