rba_agent_bootstrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the main behavioral actions: starting/attaching the bridge, syncing autoexec, optionally starting the dashboard, notifying clients, and returning health. This gives a useful high-level picture of side effects and state changes, though it lacks details about prerequisites or consequences of each step.

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 a single, tightly structured sentence: front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a list of steps. Every phrase earns its place, and the punctuation/colon format makes the pipeline easy to scan.

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?

This is a multi-step bootstrap tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to be more detailed to make up for that. It omits parameter semantics, preconditions (e.g., what 'attach' vs 'start' means), return value shape beyond 'health', and side-effect details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters, but it does not. 'optionally start dashboard' maps loosely to startDashboard/dashboardPort, and 'notify clients' maps to notify, but timeoutMs, includePing, and exact relationships/behaviors are not explained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prepare') with a clear resource ('RBA') and scope ('for an agent session'), plus a concise sequence of steps (start/attach bridge, sync autoexec, dashboard, notify, health). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_start_live_session or rba_health_check by presenting a unique orchestration role.

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 phrase 'for an agent session' provides a clear context of when to use this tool: as an initialization/setup step before interacting with RBA. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended usage window is clear and no exclusionary guidance is given.

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