design_session_resume

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the blocking question is surfaced first and takes priority, otherwise the next pipeline stage is named. But it never says whether resuming is read-only or has side effects, nor what happens when session_id is omitted (it defaults to an empty string).

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 verb and the returned value, then the priority rule, then the usage trigger. Roughly 50 words with no filler, though the parenthetical 'answer it before proceeding' could be folded more tightly into the priority sentence.

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 needn't be spelled out, and the description's main job — explaining the resume semantics and priority ordering — is done. However, the missing session_id semantics and the unstated read/write character of the operation leave real gaps for a session-state tool.

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% and the description never mentions session_id at all. The one parameter has a default of empty string, and the description gives no clue whether that means 'resume the most recent session' or 'error out' — exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Resume a design run') plus an explicit statement of what comes back: state plus a plain-language next-action hint. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the adjacent siblings (design_session_start, design_session_status, design_next_action) that an agent would have to weigh it against.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition: 'Use this at the start of a fresh client session to pick up where the last one stopped,' and adds sequencing guidance ('answer it before proceeding'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. versus design_session_start for a brand-new run or design_session_status for mid-run polling.

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