bootstrap_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with "Read-only" and adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the tool works without any chat history and returns a consolidated bootstrap payload including a context validation result and pending ChatGPT handoffs. It does not discuss size, cost, or failure behavior (e.g., what happens for an unknown or unregistered project_id), which keeps it below 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?

The purpose and read-only/first-call guidance are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool routing is a clean final sentence. The long inventory of recovered artifacts is informative but dense and partly duplicates what the output schema already declares, so it is slightly heavier than necessary.

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 one-parameter bootstrap tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, safety, and sibling routing, which is everything needed to call it correctly. The enumerated return list is largely redundant with the existing output schema, and error behavior is unaddressed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already tells the agent to use an id from list_projects. The description adds no format, validation, or failure semantics for project_id, so the schema does all the work — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Recover a project's whole working state without any chat history" states a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of what is recovered (tasks, pending messages, decisions, blockers, handoff, next action) makes the scope concrete. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_context (one role's view) and get_context_history (past versions).

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?

"Call it first in a new conversation" is an explicit trigger condition, and the closing sentence routes the agent to the correct alternatives with the condition that selects each (per-role view, historical versions). No inference is required to pick between them.

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