Agent Prime

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds rich behavioral context by listing exactly what is rehydrated (memories, KG entities, files, changes, suggestions), going well beyond the 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the most critical information—mandatory use, purpose, and usage order. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core functionality and usage order adequately. However, it could briefly mention that the tool returns a structured context package to further set expectations.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any parameter beyond their names. For instance, 'max_memories' and 'max_entities' are not described, leaving agents to guess their semantics. The description should outline key parameters but fails to do so.

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's purpose: 'Rehydrates project context, recalled memories, KG entities, relevant files, recent changes, and suggested actions in one call.' It identifies itself as the primary initialization tool and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it should be called before deeper research.

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 explicitly says 'Always call this BEFORE deeper research,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving a gap for potential misuse in non-initialization scenarios.

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