Astria-Index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what gets retrieved ('description, progress, related memories, notes, and any sub-tasks') and error conditions ('Returns an error if the session_id doesn't exist or has already been completed'). Could clarify if this updates session status/timestamps, but error disclosure adds significant value.

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?

Appropriately structured with clear visual sections (description, use cases, args, returns) that front-load critical information. No redundant sentences, though the multi-section format makes it longer than minimalist definitions. Given the 0% schema coverage and need for usage guidance, the length is justified.

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?

Comprehensive for a single-parameter tool: covers prerequisites, three distinct usage scenarios, parameter provenance, error states, and return value summary. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes rather than duplicates the full return structure.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by providing the parameter's semantic source ('from `start_session` or `my_sessions` results'), format example ('e.g., "s001"'), and clear identifier semantics. This prevents agents from inventing session IDs.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination ('Resume a previous session') and clarifies the outcome ('get full context to continue working'). It distinguishes from sibling 'start_session' by emphasizing retrieval of existing state versus creating new work, and from 'my_sessions' by focusing on single-session deep retrieval versus listing.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' bullet points covering cold-start scenarios, break resumption, and progress checking. Critically, it mandates the prerequisite workflow: 'Always call `my_sessions` first to find the correct session_id,' preventing agents from guessing IDs. Also distinguishes when to use versus starting fresh.

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