get_session_continuation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely discharges it: it discloses the exact ordered contents of the response and that retrieval is deterministic with no vector search. It omits permission/auth requirements and any note about cost or side effects, but for a read tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the urgency directive, then a compact enumerated return list, then the parameter note. Every sentence carries information; only the capitalized domain jargon (QUIET THREADS, CORE) slightly taxes a first-time reader.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. Combined with the strong usage directive and parameter note, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it lacks any auth or failure-mode context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does: 'channel: optional — return only that lane's pin' explains the filter and its opt-in nature. It is terse but sufficient for a one-param tool.

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 (Returns) and enumerates the exact resources returned in order (hard-rule constraints, one pin per lane, QUIET THREADS, CORE wiki pages, wiki index), and adds a distinctive trait ('Deterministic — no vector search'). An agent can immediately distinguish this bundle-retrieval tool from siblings like load_wiki or read_memory.

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 every conversation' is an explicit, unambiguous when-to-use directive, reinforced by the deterministic-vs-vector-search contrast that differentiates it from the search_* siblings. No when-not is stated, but the first-call directive is about as strong as guidance gets.

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