Prepare For New Conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what 'preparing' entails, potential side effects, or performance characteristics. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words, making it appropriately sized. It's front-loaded with the purpose statement, though that statement is weak. The second sentence adds crucial usage guidance efficiently.

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 tool has 0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to explain what 'preparing' actually does operationally, leaving a gap in understanding the tool's effect despite the structured data.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about inputs. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add 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 'Instructions for preparing for a new conversation' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name/title without specifying what actions or resources are involved. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'initial_instructions' or 'switch_modes' that might also relate to conversation setup.

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 'This tool should only be called on explicit user request,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It establishes a strict prerequisite condition for invocation, which is precisely what usage guidelines should convey.

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