Resume Claude Code

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

The annotation already flags destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the critical behavioral trait that the call blocks until the turn completes. It also adds the 'Do not poll' directive, which is extra guidance not inferable from the annotations.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every word contributes to the core understanding.

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 complex tool with 16 parameters, the description covers the essential blocking/session-resume behavior and the no-poll rule. Since an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is adequately complete, though a bit terse given the parameter count.

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 81%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific action ('Resume') and resource ('persisted Claude Code session'), adding a key distinguishing behavior (keeping the MCP call open until completion). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like claude_code_run (new sessions) and claude_code_models (listing models).

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 gives clear context for using this tool (resume persisted session) and explicitly instructs 'Do not poll,' which is useful operational guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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