memory_bootstrap

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

The annotations provide basic safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds valuable behavioral context by listing what the tool reads (README, git log, directory structure, package configs) and what it seeds (project context, tech stack, history, structure, warnings). It also discloses the return type. It could have mentioned whether it overwrites existing memory, but the act of 'bootstrapping' implies creation/writing, so the score is still high.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, follows with two terse lines (Reads/Seeds), gives a clear usage note, and ends with the return type. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 bootstrap tool with many parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks edge-case details such as behavior when .agent-mem/ already exists, whether the scan flags are defaulted true, or failure modes. However, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the primary use case.

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?

Context indicates schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that the tool reads README/git/config/structure (which maps to the scan_* flags) and seeds project context/tech stack/history/warnings (mapping to description, tech_stack, known_warnings, etc.). However, it does not mention the required agent_name parameter or explicitly connect the 'project description' to the description parameter. It gives a high-level conceptual mapping but lacks parameter-level detail.

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 states the tool bootstraps .agent-mem/ for an existing project by auto-scanning the codebase, which is a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool memory_init with 'Use this instead of memory_init when joining an existing project for the first time,' making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when joining an existing project for the first time.' It also names the alternative tool to use instead (memory_init) and explains the benefit: 'the next agent gets full context without you manually typing everything.' This is clear and actionable.

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