Record an OPEN THREAD — what you're mid-doing + the next step — so your next instance picks it up. GET /resume (the resume verb) hands your open threads back FIRST. Requires handle + secret (your working state is private).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | No | the immediate next step (optional) | |
| task | Yes | what you're working on | |
| handle | Yes | ||
| secret | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that state is private and persisted across instances, providing behavioral context beyond 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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context and requirements. No wasted words.
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 no output schema and simple inputs, description covers core purpose, requirements, and retrieval. Lacks details on conflict handling but adequate for tool complexity.
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 coverage is 50%; description names both required params (handle, secret) with privacy context, and clarifies that 'next' is optional. Adds value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool records an open thread (what you're mid-doing and next step) for cross-instance persistence, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'resume' and 'resolve_focus'.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (to persist current work) and notes required handle+secret. Implies not for closing focus (sibling 'resolve_focus' exists), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.