recover_session

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 states the operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the session is made active, whether current state is overwritten, or whether recovery is destructive). This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies session state.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no filler. The key qualifier ('abandoned or crashed') is front-loaded, providing maximum clarity in minimal space.

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, no annotations, and a terse description, the tool is under-specified for an agent to understand what 'recover' actually accomplishes. The low parameter count reduces complexity, but the behavior and return value remain unexplained.

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 100%, with session_id described as 'Session ID to recover' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('recover') with a clear resource ('session') and adds a condition ('abandoned or crashed'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_session or start_session, though 'recover' is not fully detailed (e.g., does it resume, restore, or re-activate?).

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 phrase 'abandoned or crashed session' implies when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_session or get_session, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tools are named.

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