skill_resume_ide_companion_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and does it well: it implies reading from a local ledger, explicitly says it does not call Tripo, and states it does not mutate Unreal. It stops short of explaining whether the ledger itself is written during resume or how missing/corrupt ledgers are handled, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and then delivers concrete mechanics, negative constraints, a knowledge-base pointer, and a working example in compact form. There is no wasted repetition or filler.

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 tool with no annotations, the description covers the purpose, load path, internal rebuild behavior, output packet, and explicit non-interaction boundaries. An output schema exists and all parameters are optional, so the main remaining gap is the meaning of current_blockers and readiness_report, which an agent would likely consult the KB reference to resolve.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by mapping session_name to the default ledger path and ledger_path to an explicit override. However, current_blockers and readiness_report are completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving their format and purpose ambiguous.

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 first sentence states a precise action ('Resume an IDE companion session') and a specific resource ('durable local ledger'). The rest of the description explains what resume means mechanically: load a ledger file, rebuild status, compile the next work order, and return a resume packet, which clearly differentiates it from sibling compile-centric tools.

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 description strongly implies this tool is for resuming an existing session from a local ledger, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives like skill_compile_ide_companion_session. The usage context is clear by implication but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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