spawn_bootstrap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels. It explicitly states the side effect (writes SPAWN_AGENT_KEY to project .env), the response behavior (full token NEVER returned, only masked prefix), and the key lifecycle (expires in ~5 minutes, works once). This gives the agent a complete picture of what to expect without needing annotations.

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 a compact set of four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core exchange, the side effect, the security-masked response, and the key's time/usage limits. No redundant phrasing or filler exists. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides critical operational details.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete operational picture for a 3-parameter tool of moderate complexity. It explains the return value (masked prefix), the persistent side effect (.env write), and the constraints on the input key (expiry and single-use). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result, making it contextually complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema: it reinforces the bootstrap key format (sbk_…) and its one-time nature, but it does not add value to the 'name' or 'projectDir' parameters beyond their schema descriptions. The schema does the heavy lifting here, so no additional credit is warranted.

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 the specific verb "trade" to explain the exchange of a bootstrap key for a durable agent token, clearly identifying the resource and action. It also mentions the side effect of writing to .env, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_revoke or spawn_me. The purpose is unmistakable and unique among the listed siblings.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you possess a one-time setup bootstrap key) and provides critical timing constraints (keys expire in ~5 minutes and work once). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, such as when a durable token already exists. Overall, the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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