execute_psn_bootstrap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: the asynchronous nature ('async'), the polling-based return value ('job ID'), and external dependencies ('PsN + NONMEM'). It does not disclose potential side effects or cleanup behavior.

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 consists of three dense, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the action, the return value, and the prerequisites. Every clause earns its place by conveying distinct operational information.

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 lack of output schema, the description appropriately compensates by documenting the return value ('job ID'). It adequately covers the tool's complexity (nested options, external dependencies) for an execution utility, though it could specify error conditions or polling intervals.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, examples, or syntax guidance beyond what the schema already provides for model_path, samples, and the nested options object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') with a clear resource ('bootstrap using PsN'), explicitly distinguishing this tool from siblings like execute_psn_vpc. The parenthetical '(async)' further clarifies the execution model.

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 clear context by stating prerequisites ('Requires PsN + NONMEM') and the return value pattern ('Returns job ID for polling'), implying the async workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar execution tools or cancellation policies.

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