omni_map_onboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read/verify operation by saying it 'verifies' and 'reports missing/outdated/unwritten documents,' but the autoBootstrap parameter defaults to true and 'Create or repair the pack when documents are missing or version-stale.' The description does not disclose this potential side effect, making the tool seem safer/more read-only than it actually is.

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 with strong front-loading: 'START HERE for any map task.' It packs purpose, action, output, and usage timing without wasted words. Every clause adds value.

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?

The description covers when to run it, what it returns, and how it relates to the bridge/knowledge base. However, it omits the autoBootstrap side-effect behavior and does not describe error or missing-folder behavior. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, this is a meaningful gap, though the schema compensates for some parameter-level detail.

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%, so the schema already documents map, full, autoBootstrap, and the boolean flag with defaults. The description adds some context by linking 'map folder' to the map parameter, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter explanations. 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 is explicit: 'Locates the map folder, verifies the per-map agent context pack, and returns the mandatory documents...' It names a specific verb, resource, and concrete output, and anchors itself as 'START HERE for any map task.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling map tools by establishing it as the onboarding entry point.

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 explicit timing: 'Run this before your first batch on a map, even when connected to the bridge.' It also contrasts itself with the MCP knowledge base, explaining why the pack matters for the specific map. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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