bootstrap

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description explains exactly why: it persists a compiled context summary and audit event, and repeated calls create fresh records. It also discloses success/failure shape (status, context, skills or an error envelope) and negative scope, adding real value beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its substitutes, followed by prerequisite, side effects, exclusions, and return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information; none restates the name or annotations verbatim.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need only cover call placement, prerequisites, and side effects, all of which are stated. For a zero-parameter aggregate tool with real persistence side effects, nothing material is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description instead spends its words on behavior and call placement, which is the right trade-off.

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 specific verb and three concrete resources (status, project context, skill catalog) plus the timing constraint (once at session startup). This clearly distinguishes it from the aggregatable siblings status, context, and list_skills, and from get_skill_detail.

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?

Explicitly names the three calls it replaces, names the sibling to use instead for deeper catalog lookups, and states the prerequisite (initialized project memory). It also gives exclusions: it does not install skills or synchronize hosts, which routes the agent to the host/skill management tools.

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