Build a live context brief for the AI agent

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: it never silently chooses between distinct accounts, capability probing is safe but slower, and the tool never mutates game state. It also gives a failure path (inspect tool-schema), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads 'READ-ONLY' and the core purpose efficiently, then structures the rest. However, the trailing 'Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only' and the full signature line partially duplicate the annotations and schema, adding mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return contents, and it does: connected clients, selection resolution, game identity, executor identity/capabilities, and next steps. Combined with usage triggers and failure guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so all seven optional parameters and their defaults are already documented in the schema. The signature line in the description largely restates the schema (listing them as 'any?') rather than adding format or interaction guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bootstrap an AI agent with the current MCP/session/game context in one call') and enumerates exactly what the brief contains. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get-active-client, get-game-info, and get-executor-info because it is the aggregating one-call bootstrap rather than a single-field getter.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('at the start of a task or after a reconnect') and what it replaces ('instead of separately guessing which client, place, executor, or capability set is active'). It even states the disambiguation behavior when multiple clients are connected, which is a real routing rule an agent needs.

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