aiworkhub_manager_bootstrap

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It discloses that contract prose is delivered once per session and then suppressed with its sha, and that steady-state replies drop detailed bodies from task_hygiene/task_health, replacing them with names and hashes. But it omits auth requirements, error handling, and whether the tool mutates any 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?

The description is long and somewhat rambling, with a dense second paragraph about data suppression that could be tightened. It is front-loaded with the imperative 'CALL FIRST', but the structure is not optimally concise and includes redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values but should clarify the contract, callback workflow, and identity block. It covers the suppression mechanics but leaves the nature of the 'contract' and 'callback workflow' unexplained, making it incomplete for a mandatory first-call tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains all three parameters: include_contract=true re-reads the contract, known_contract_sha256 proves prior receipt, and include_diagnostics=true restores dropped details. While it does not cover formats or defaults in depth, it adds clear semantic value beyond the schema's bare names.

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 states it delivers a 'mandatory repository manager contract and callback workflow' and is the 'CALL FIRST' tool, but it does not clearly define what the tool actually returns or does beyond contract delivery. The inclusion of identity-block elements and the suppression mechanism adds detail, yet the core purpose remains abstract and jargon-heavy.

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?

It explicitly says 'CALL FIRST' and describes when to use include_contract and known_contract_sha256, implying it is the initial call. However, it provides no guidance on when NOT to use it, no alternatives for other bootstrap-like actions, and no prerequisites or failure scenarios.

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