arrive

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

No annotations present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (no handoff consumption), provides a summary, and is lightweight. It does not mention side effects or auth, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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 somewhat verbose and poetic, using metaphors like 'foyer' and 'warm boot'. It front-loads the key purpose but could be more concise. Every sentence adds some value, but the style may reduce clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one optional parameter, the description adequately explains the tool's function and relationship to siblings. However, it lacks details on return format or exact behavior in edge cases.

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?

Only one optional parameter 'source_instance' with schema description. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds context about audit/log but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema.

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 answers 'where am I?' with a summary screen including specific elements like spiral status, open thread, handoff/marker counts, since-last-reflection summary, and self-model. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools where_did_i_leave_off and arrive_delta.

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 states that arrive does NOT consume handoffs and that consuming happens in where_did_i_leave_off. Also mentions arrive_delta for showing only changes, providing clear guidance on when to use alternatives.

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