Boot the brain

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by specifying what is written ('only the boot stamp (and the brain itself on first use)'), what is loaded (memory components, protocols, retired_tools), that offline sync is normal, and important interpretation rules ('never report recently_closed as pending; verify open_items before repeating them'). This matches annotations readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; no contradiction.

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 instruction is front-loaded ('call it FIRST in every conversation'), and every sentence is informative. It is a bit long with dense lists of loaded memory elements, but for a boot tool that must set up an entire context, this level of detail is justified.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's full role: invocation timing, side effects, what it loads, behavior notes for open_items/recently_closed, protocol enforcement, and the necessary close-out with consolidate. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description instead explains what the tool provides when invoked, which is appropriate for a parameterless session-start tool.

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 what the tool does: it reads the brain at session start, boots context, and explicitly says 'call it FIRST in every conversation.' It names the specific resource (the brain/memory) and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the session-initialization tool, with close-out routed to crbro_consolidate.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call it FIRST in every conversation, before any other work.' It also tells the agent what happens if skipped ('Skipping it loses all context') and names the complementary closing tool ('close the session with crbro_consolidate'), giving clear usage boundaries without ambiguity.

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