wisdom_quickstart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the conditional side effect of registering the agent and lists the other steps, but 'verify project' is ambiguous and the description does not cover output, errors, or additional side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action list is front-loaded, and the usage directive is compact and clear.

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 an orchestrating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the despription covers the core flow but omits return value, failure modes, and behavior when the agent or project is not present. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely maps task_description and agent_description to the setup steps without adding meaningful new parameter-level detail.

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 identifies a specific composite operation: checks the agent, registers it if needed, verifies the project, and loads context for the current task. This is clear and distinct from the other wisdom_* tools, though no specific sibling is named as the alternative.

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 to call this instead of making multiple separate setup calls, giving a clear usage rule. It does not mention edge cases where a more targeted tool like wisdom_load_context_for_task would be better.

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