session_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It describes the inspection and return values, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state that it modifies nothing or what happens if the session file is missing. It does mention 'existing project' as a precondition, but more could be disclosed.

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 sentences with no waste. The core functionality is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise. Every sentence earns 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case behavior (e.g., missing session file), but for this complexity, it's reasonably complete.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, describing project_path and its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Inspect' and the resource '.kicad_jlcpcb_session.json', and specifies what is returned (current stage, checkpoints, recommended next step). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning its use for offering a resume-or-restart choice, making its purpose distinct.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use at the start of /pcb-new or /pcb-from-bom on an existing project.' This tells the agent when to call it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies it's for resuming existing workflows, which is clear enough.

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