resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does disclose real behavior: lane-scoped results include the latest handoff plus children versus the account-wide packet, the no-arg fallback also lists lanes, and a not-yet-current compile state is reported instead of stale content. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure modes, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the conditional behavior, and each sentence adds distinct information. Slightly dense clause stacking ('its own latest handoff + its children instead of the account-wide packet'), but no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does describe return content (packet, handoff, children, lane list, compile state), which is genuinely helpful. It still leaves the project parameter and any error/auth behavior unexplained, so a caller cannot fully predict invocation outcomes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains lane_code well (a work-lane code, obtainable from list_lanes) and implies the default behavior when it is absent, but the 'project' parameter is never explained — what it scopes, its format, or where to get it — leaving half the parameters under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (the account's continuity packet), and disambiguates itself from siblings by explaining the lane_code branch and pointing at list_lanes for codes. The domain term 'continuity'/'packet' is jargon that isn't defined, which keeps it short of a 5, but an agent can still tell what the tool returns.

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 explicit branching conditions: pass lane_code for a lane-scoped packet, pass neither project nor lane_code to get the lane list for discovery, and use list_lanes to obtain codes. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over status or replay_get, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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