boots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's trailing 'Read-only' is redundant rather than additive. The genuinely useful disclosure is the index-0-is-current-boot ordering convention, which is behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations or the empty schema.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource stated first and the ordering rule immediately after. Nothing is padded, and the one arguably redundant clause ('Read-only') costs almost nothing in length.

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 an output schema present, return values need no prose explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one non-obvious piece — boot indexing — making it sufficient for correct invocation, with only the missing relationship to the journal sibling as a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter information is missing or misleading.

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?

Names a specific resource (the boot sessions recorded by the journal) and a concrete semantic detail — index 0 is the current boot — which tells an agent exactly what the list contains and how it is ordered. It is clearly distinct from siblings like journal, unit_status, or failed_units, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 index-0 convention implies how the output is meant to be consumed (e.g., selecting a boot to query elsewhere), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the journal/boot relationship, and no alternatives named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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