get_resume_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering of events ('oldest first, most recent max_events') and the fact that verification results are bundled in. It does not describe failure/error behavior when the hash chain fails to verify.

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, zero waste, with the operational guidance front-loaded before the return-value enumeration. Every clause 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?

For a read-only bootstrap tool with full annotation coverage and a single fully-documented parameter, the definition is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the absence of an output schema and any note on how a failed hash-chain verification is surfaced.

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%, so the schema already documents max_events with its bounds and meaning. The description's 'most recent max_events' restates what the schema says with no added format, default, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get_resume_context') and enumerates exactly what it returns: the latest checkpoint, the events appended since it, and the hash-chain verification result. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, though the composite bootstrap bundle is distinct from verify_chain and read_query.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Call this first in a new session or after context compaction.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use verify_chain for verification only'), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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