memory_bootstrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (latest active handoff + memory chunks), which is useful, but says nothing about the mark_resumed side effect, auth/permissions, or whether the operation mutates state.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return payload, with the call-timing instruction last. No filler.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose adequately but leaves parameter semantics and side-effect behavior (mark_resumed) unexplained. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description should compensate but does not. It omits any guidance on query, scope, mark_resumed, memory_limit, or handoff_limit, leaving critical recall/limit semantics undocumented in both places.

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+resource: start/resume work across clients, returning the latest active handoff plus durable memory chunks. This distinguishes it from the individual handoff_load and memory_recall siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance: 'Call once at the beginning of substantial work.' This tells the agent when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against the sibling handoff_load/memory_recall tools it supersedes.

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