boot_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it is read-only and does not modify stored data, and it discloses that orientation scores are structural checks, not guarantees of loaded context. This adds valuable context beyond the basic function, though it doesn't detail the output format or potential edge-case errors.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second sentence explains the data sources and operations, and the third provides workflow and caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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 complexity (multiple inputs, calculations, and output), the description covers inputs, actions, and output semantics (orientation score, open loops, captures). No output schema exists, so the description does well to mention what the report includes. It lacks explicit return format details, but the description is strong overall.

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 all three parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it does reiterate the purpose of identity and transcript paths. This matches the baseline 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 generates a session orientation report, with a specific verb (generate) and resource (session orientation report). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing its unique function of reading identity, scanning memory, and calculating an orientation score, which none of the siblings perform.

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?

It explicitly provides a workflow directive: 'call boot_report first thing every session, before any substantive work.' This gives clear contextual guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but none are needed given its unique role.

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