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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful retry/recovery framing ('if it was lost'), but says nothing about what happens when no unanswered question exists – an important edge case for a recovery tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the recovery condition before the vaguer 'прогресс' clause. No padding, though the trailing progress mention is underspecified rather than earning its place.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description must explain what is returned and what 'limit' controls, and it does neither. An agent knows why to call it but not what it will get back nor how the second parameter shapes the result.

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 carries the full burden and fails: 'limit' (default 5, range 1-10) is never explained – presumably it bounds returned progress items, but that is a guess. session_id is the only obvious parameter, and even it is not described.

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?

States a specific verb ('Повторно получить') and resource ('текущий неотвеченный вопрос сессии'), plus the recovery scope ('если он потерян'). This distinguishes it from the sibling answer/start/finish tools, though the appended 'и прогресс' is vague about what progress payload is returned.

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 parenthetical '(если он потерян)' implies the trigger condition – reclaiming lost session state – but no explicit when-not or alternatives are named (e.g. use ruforge_diagnostic_answer to respond, ruforge_diagnostic_start to begin). Usage must be inferred from sibling names.

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