Synthetic Continuity Resume

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that output is deterministic and synthetic, and that it persists nothing. This supplements annotations well without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences: first explains purpose, second describes output and side effects. No wasted words, front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, but annotations provide safety profile, description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return value (checkpoint, inconsistencies, next action). Complete for a demo 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description confirms 'takes no arguments', which is sufficient. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows what a future continuity resume can surface and lists its outputs (prior checkpoint, inconsistencies, next action). It distinguishes itself from sibling demo tools like demo_checkpoint by specifying it's a demo for 'continuity resume', but could be more direct.

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?

Description notes it takes no arguments and reads no tenant data, implying safe usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like demo_checkpoint or groundwork_public_proof. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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