chat_get_session_resume_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates the retrieval nature of the tool and reveals the ledger summary is consumable 'by path', but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, failure modes for missing sessions, or whether any state is modified.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by tight usage guidance, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the key information immediately visible.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides the selection trigger, result-routing guidance, and an invocation example. The main gap is the underdocumented parameter semantics, which prevents a 5.

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%, and the description only indirectly illustrates session via the example session='ide-companion'. message_limit is never explained, and its relationship to 'recent chat messages' is left to inference, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Load recent chat messages plus matching IDE companion ledger summary.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling chat tools by naming the unique ledger-summary component and its intended consumer.

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?

'Use this before showing a resume card in MCP Chat' gives a clear situational trigger, and the next sentence explains how the result should be passed to skill_resume_ide_companion_session. It stops short of a 5 because it does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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