Resume task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it writes a side effect ('Records in the timeline that you resumed') and enumerates the returned payload. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when no checkpoint exists) and any permission/rate constraints, keeping it from a 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 imperative lead ('CALL THIS FIRST') is front-loaded and the text is largely free of filler. The main sentence is long and clause-heavy, but each clause adds distinct payload information, so it remains efficient overall.

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 session-bootstrap tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and the write side effect well. It leaves out edge cases such as the no-checkpoint state, a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 projectPath, agent, and detail including the enum and default. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline-3 rule.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it resumes a task by returning the previous agent's saved checkpoint plus post-checkpoint activity. It's very concrete about what comes back (checkpoint, hook captures, Git state, later work). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling get_handoff, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'CALL THIS FIRST in a new session' is an explicit, front-loaded usage trigger, and 'without reading old chat transcripts' implies the alternative it replaces. There's no stated when-not condition or a named sibling to prefer in other cases, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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