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

The annotations are all false and therefore uninformative, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the key side effect (loading into the current client thread session) and the exact return behavior ('compiled workflow context text only, with no user task attached'). It does not discuss session-overwrite semantics, but it does disclose the most important non-obvious behavior.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the selector caveat and return behavior each earn their place. It is dense but still readable.

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 5-parameter session-start tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it: what it loads, the session scope, the selector pitfall, and the return shape. Optional details like how existing session state is affected are omitted, but they are not required for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value on top of the schema by explaining that workflowId must not be a reserved selector and must be the installed workflow identifier, preventing a common misuse. Other parameters remain documented by the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Load a specific Oi workflow as reusable session context for the current client thread.' It also distinguishes the operation by noting that reserved selectors are not IDs and by stating the return is compiled context only with no user task attached, which separates it from execution-oriented workflow tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('reusable session context for the current client thread') and includes a practical instruction to strip reserved wf/workflow/workflows selectors. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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