status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by asserting the absence of side effects on memory records and host configuration, and by noting the returned payload includes recommended actions and initialized=false. It does not discuss cost, latency, or permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage routing, then the negative guarantee and return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 a zero-parameter read tool with a declared output schema, the description covers the only gaps that matter: what is inspected, when to prefer doctor or bootstrap, and that no state is mutated. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free by framing it as an inspection of ambient project state.

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 ("Inspect") and resource with an explicit enumeration of what is surfaced: project initialization, fact counts, storage size, registered skills, and host validation status. An agent can distinguish this read-only status probe from mutations like initialize_project or host_setup without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both positive triggers ("before initialization", "to diagnose whether context can be loaded") and explicit alternatives ("use doctor for environment diagnostics and bootstrap for session startup"). It also states exclusions ("Does not change memory records or configure hosts"), which routes the agent away from write-oriented siblings.

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