cos_takeover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently states that the tool mutates session state (sets the situation to existing-project-takeover, picks a persona) and produces an initial output (a dispatch action). It does not address reversibility or permissions, but for a bootstrap tool this level of disclosure is adequate and non-contradictory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core verb 'Bootstrap,' and every clause adds meaningful detail. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral output, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics and the lack of annotations leave gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding task_marker and repo_description.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-specific guidance. The parameter names (session_id, task_marker, repo_description) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not explain required formats, the meaning of task_marker, or how repo_description influences behavior, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 clearly identifies a verb ('Bootstrap') and a resource ('existing-project-takeover session'), and goes further by specifying the exact side effects: sets the situation, picks the legacy-maintainer persona, and returns the first dispatch action. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like cos_situation_detect or cos_task_daily.

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 provides an explicit usage condition: 'Use when inheriting a legacy repo with no docs.' This gives the agent clear positive guidance on when to invoke this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection.

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