Get handoff

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main addition is the 'raw ... (JSON)' framing, which usefully signals unprocessed output versus a resumed session. It does not disclose size, pagination, or what happens if no checkpoint exists — gaps that matter but are modest for a single-parameter read.

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 short sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the action and output, the second handles sibling routing. Nothing redundant and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (raw JSON checkpoint) and when to prefer an alternative. Only minor gaps remain, such as the no-checkpoint case and whether the output is a full session state.

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% and projectPath is documented as 'Absolute path of the workspace/project root,' so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no further meaning about the path (e.g., whether relative paths work or how it is resolved), making this a baseline 3.

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 (Read) and resource (raw saved checkpoint), plus the return format (JSON) and scope (for a project). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling resume_task, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer resume_task when starting a session,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating the positive when-to-use case (e.g., when you need raw JSON for inspection or tooling), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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