Reissues the active task step with its SOP, plan item, procedure text, and prior results. Use it after interruptions or condensed context to resume execution.
Re-issue the current step with its SOP, plan item, procedure text, and earlier results. Use after an interruption or condensed context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The session_id start_session returned |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the returned payload (SOP, plan item, procedure text, earlier results), which is the key behavioral fact here. It doesn't state whether the call is side-effect free or whether re-issuing mutates step state, leaving a meaningful gap for a session-state tool.
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 sentences, no filler, with the action and payload front-loaded and the usage condition second. Nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the four things that come back. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has what it needs; only the side-effect/idempotency profile is unstated.
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?
There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that session_id is the value returned by start_session. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
A specific verb ('re-issue') plus a specific resource ('the current step') and an enumeration of what is re-issued (SOP, plan item, procedure text, earlier results). It's clearly distinct from get_process_step or complete_step, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
'Use after an interruption or condensed context' gives a clear triggering condition, which is exactly the kind of routing hint an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives such as get_process_step, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.