workspace_resume

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

The annotation indicates readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the 'token-budgeted' trait, but 'restore' could be misinterpreted as a mutation. No additional behavioral context (e.g., what state is loaded, impact on session) is disclosed beyond the annotation.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from a clearer structure or bullet points.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits all parameter semantics, return values, and edge case behavior, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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 does not mention any of the five parameters. The agent receives no guidance on the meaning or usage of parameters like 'task', 'agent_id', 'client_id', 'max_tokens', or 'project_id'.

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 clearly states the action ('restore'), the resource ('compact project state'), and the context ('new agent session', 'token-budgeted'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like context_get or memory_read, which might also restore state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical contexts.

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