agent_handshake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'optimal config' but does not disclose if it modifies state, requires permissions, or what happens on repeated calls. For a handshake/onboarding tool, the behavior is partly inferred but not fully transparent.

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 concise: a clear lead sentence followed by a bullet-like argument list with examples. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage instruction, and every sentence adds value without 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 tool's simplicity (handshake), zero required params, an output schema (not shown but present), and many siblings, the description fully covers context: what to pass, calling order, and expected return ('optimal config'). It is complete for its role.

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% (no schema descriptions), yet the description lists all 7 parameters with examples (e.g., 'model: Your model ID (e.g. 'claude-opus-4-6')'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though the format of defaults in examples is slightly inconsistent.

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 it is 'Personalized agent onboarding' to 'Declare your environment and get optimal config' and instructs to 'Call this FIRST when connecting to MidOS.' This sets a specific verb+resource scope and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the mandatory initial step.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when connecting to MidOS' and advises to 'Pass as much info as you know' while noting 'Unknown fields can be left empty -- you'll get sensible defaults.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like agent_bootstrap, but the clarity of when to use (at connection start) is strong.

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