aimfp_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and side-effect-free. The description adds that it provides a 'full context bundle' or 'watchdog alerts', which is useful operational context but does not disclose new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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: first states purpose, second details parameter usage. No redundancy, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameter semantics but omits what the tool returns (no output schema exists). For an orchestrator, return value details would be helpful for understanding how to use its output.

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 coverage is 100% and describes the boolean parameter. The description goes further by linking the parameter values to specific scenarios (true = session start, false = checkpoint), adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a 'main entry point orchestrator' with two specific use cases: session start and work checkpoints. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform specific CRUD operations or queries.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (session start with is_new_session=true, work checkpoints with false) but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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