session_bootstrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful traits: read-only, bounded, and deliberately scoped away from heavy inventory work. It still omits permissions/auth needs, idempotency, and what 'bind' actually changes (if anything), so coverage is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core scope statement front-loaded before the negative-scope caveat. The only drag is the jargon-heavy phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the negative scope clarifies the tool's boundary. But the lone undocumented parameter and the vague 'bind cheaply' framing leave an agent without enough to invoke this confidently in a large, dense sibling set.

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?

There is one parameter, workspace_root, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent gets no guidance on what the root should be, whether it is optional (schema default null), or what happens when omitted, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a 'bounded read-only bootstrap' that 'bind[s] cheaply' and reads 'canonical restore state', giving a rough sense of a lightweight startup/restore operation. However, 'bind cheaply' and 'canonical restore state' are jargon that leaves the concrete output and action ambiguous, and while it distinguishes itself from discovery/archaeology work, it never clearly names what it produces. Purpose is vague-but-directional rather than specific.

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 gives exclusion guidance by naming what bootstrap does not do (filesystem inventory, Big-Bang discovery, repository archaeology) and routing those to onboarding/maintenance. That implies a when-to-use boundary, but it never names a concrete sibling (e.g. session_restore, bigbang_scan, filesystem_scan) as the alternative, so the routing is left to inference.

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