Load a saved session or a project's current session to retrieve its handoff packet, state, session items, and recent context, so agents can continue shared work.
Pick up a session (or the latest one in a project): handoff packet, state, session items, recent context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| max_tokens | No | ||
| session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists returned content (a partial substitute for a missing output schema), but says nothing about authentication (an api_key parameter exists), side effects, idempotency, or what 'latest one in a project' fallback behavior implies.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the parenthetical scoping is compact. It is efficient, though terseness here contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.
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 tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. Its enumeration of return content helps slightly, but critical invocation details (auth, token budget, session vs project selection) are missing.
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 0% for 5 parameters. The description only obliquely references 'project' and 'session' and never explains agent, api_key, or max_tokens (with its default of 1200). It does not compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.
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 verb 'pick up' and resource 'session' are identifiable, and the description hints at the payload (handoff packet, state, session items, recent context). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'pickup' or from 'handoff', leaving the agent unable to tell which session-retrieval tool to choose. Purpose is implied rather than stated cleanly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when NOT to use it. With siblings named 'pickup', 'handoff', and 'board', the absence of any routing rule is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.