memory_bootstrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prioritizing behavior ('open and recent sessions') but doesn't explain what happens with the budget_chars parameter, whether context is truncated, or what the return format looks like. The description provides minimal behavioral insight beyond a basic read operation.

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 single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it could include a brief note on budget_chars or usage without becoming verbose.

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 tool has an output schema (which likely describes the returned context) and simple parameters, the description is somewhat minimal. It doesn't explain what 'bounded' means or how budget_chars affects the result. For a tool that likely aggregates memory, more context about the scope and prioritization would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The description does not mention any parameters, relying entirely on the schema. With 0% coverage, this is a gap, but the parameter names (agent_name, project_key, budget_chars) are fairly self-explanatory. The description adds no explanatory value for parameters.

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 a clear verb ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('bounded project context'), with an explicit prioritization ('open and recent sessions'). It could be slightly more specific about what constitutes 'project context', but it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_sync_context or list_agents.

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 need a bounded, prioritized view of project context) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools like get_sync_context and pull_truth, there is no guidance to help an agent choose between them.

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