resume_last_work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the mechanism ('via DevMemory') and the action of suggesting next steps, but does not disclose how 'last work' is determined or any limitations. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is efficiently written and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states the main purpose and outcome (restores context, suggests next steps), but could be more specific about return format or required inputs. Given the annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both repoUrl and repoPath, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only mentions the overall operation.

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?

Purpose is clear: 'Restores last work context and suggests next steps' gives a specific verb (restore/suggest) and resource (last work context). It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects or get_commit_timeline, though it could more explicitly contrast with get_work_session or find_unfinished_tasks which are related to work state.

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 implies usage when you want to resume previous work, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools, nor exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites like needing an existing memory entry or how repoUrl/repoPath should be chosen.

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