ateam_bootstrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns explanations and instructions, implying it is a read-only information tool. It does not explicitly confirm no side effects, but the description content strongly suggests non-mutating behavior. A score of 4 reflects minor omission of explicit safety guarantees.

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 concise, containing only essential information: mandatory nature, trigger conditions, return value, and a clear directive. Every sentence adds value 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 zero-parameter input schema and absence of output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to call, what to expect, and how to behave. No additional information is required for correct usage.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is fully described. No additional parameter documentation is needed. The description perfectly handles this case.

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 that ateam_bootstrap is the required onboarding entrypoint, specifies the exact scenarios when it must be called (user greets, asks for help, first connection, etc.), and explains what it returns (platform explanation, examples, behavior instructions). This differentiates it from all sibling tools, which focus on specific actions like auth, building, or testing.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is mandatory for onboarding scenarios and explicitly warns not to improvise an introduction. It lists multiple trigger conditions (greeting, question about capabilities, etc.), making it clear when to use this tool.

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