bootstrap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by listing what the result contains (matching code, project summary, map, conventions) when task_hint is given, but says nothing about indexing cost, latency, or what happens without a hint — even though indexing_depth is the main behavioral lever.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact return-value note. The trailing 'Args:' block partially restates the schema, which is slightly redundant, but it is short and does not bury the lead.

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?

With no output schema and 4 parameters, the description does cover the shape of the return value, which is the most important gap to fill. However, it omits the meaning of the indexing modes and gives no signal on how this differs from the crowded set of search/explore siblings, leaving an agent unable to route confidently.

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 only 25%, so description must compensate. It explains task_hint well and enumerates indexing_depth's accepted values with 'auto' as the default, but never explains what eager/lazy/minimal actually do. workspace and max_tokens are entirely undocumented in the description, and workspace only has the schema to lean on.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: find where a behavior is implemented in an unfamiliar repo. That said, the tool name 'bootstrap' suggests project setup, so the description is doing real disambiguation work. It never contrasts with obvious siblings such as explore_codebase, relevant_context, or semantic_search, which likely overlap.

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?

'In an unfamiliar repository' implies the context for use, and the conditional 'With task_hint...' hints at what changes when a hint is supplied. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-pick-an-alternative guidance, and no exclusions against the many similar search/explore siblings.

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