engram_wake_up

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the payload size (~170 tokens) and that this is a cold-start/boot operation, but it is silent on whether the call mutates stored state, which matters because the rebuild_l1 parameter implies a possible write side effect, and it says nothing about auth or idempotency.

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, no filler, with the return payload stated first and the usage directive second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the definition thin: the agent knows roughly what comes back but not what the two inputs change. For a boot tool whose rebuild_l1 flag can alter behavior, the description should explain that flag and the return shape.

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% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what 'wing' scopes or what forcing rebuild_l1 does (presumably an expensive L1 regeneration), which is a meaningful gap for a 2-parameter 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?

States a concrete verb (Return) and a concrete resource (L0+L1 cold-start context) and scopes it as the session-start payload, which differentiates it from siblings like engram_load_room or engram_search. The 'L0+L1' shorthand is internal jargon an agent cannot decode from the definition alone, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

"Load this at the start of every session" is an explicit, unambiguous when-to-use directive, stronger than typical implied guidance. It does not, however, mention any alternative or when NOT to call it (e.g., whether it is redundant after engram_status).

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