session_resume

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

Annotations indicate this is a state-changing but non-destructive operation, and the description adds the detail of 'reattach' and 'exact' without explaining side effects. It does not disclose what happens to the existing session, whether resuming is idempotent, what state the session will be in after the call, or what occurs if the native session is not found.

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 short sentence with no redundant fluff, earning it a point for brevity. However, it is under-specified rather than concisely complete; important behavioral and parameter details are absent, so the one sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and a mutating operation, the description lacks critical context: return behavior, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., must a session already exist?), and relationship to sibling tools. The agent is left with a name and schema that do not fully explain how to invoke the tool correctly in 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 bears the burden of explaining the two required parameters. It only implies the importance of 'exact' identity through 'exact native session,' but never clarifies how provider relates to nativeId, how to obtain nativeId, or what formats are expected. The enum values for provider are listed in the schema but their meaning in this context is left unexplained.

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 names a specific action ('Resume or reattach') and a clear resource ('an exact native session'), which distinguishes it from generic session management. The phrase 'exact native session' also hints at a distinct scope compared to sibling tools like resume_thread, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus resume_thread, session_create, or other session-related tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema alone.

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