init

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

With no annotations provided, the description assumes full burden. It discloses idempotency and safety to re-run, which are critical behavioral traits for a setup tool. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens if the agent is already set up.

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 concise sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the brief description covers purpose and safety, it lacks details on return values, what happens on success or failure, and any prerequisites. For a multi-action bootstrap tool, more behavioral context would be beneficial, especially given no output schema.

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 only parameter 'rail' has full schema coverage (100%), and the description does not add any meaning beyond the enum options listed in the schema. Baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 verb ('Set up') and resource ('agent allowance, request faucet funding, and check tier status'), explicitly calling it a 'single-call bootstrap.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like allowance_create, request_faucet, and tier_status, which perform only one of these actions.

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 implies usage for initial setup ('bootstrap') and notes idempotency ('safe to re-run'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual sibling tools or provide alternative scenarios.

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