resume_command

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it reinforces the readOnlyHint by stating explicitly that the tool never executes the command, and discloses that a directory accompanies the command string. It does not explain the idempotentHint=false nuance (e.g. whether 'latest' resolution can change between calls).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the non-execution caveat. No wasted phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the payload (command + directory). Safety annotations are covered. Minor gap: no note on whether the returned command format varies by agent CLI.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'latest' convention. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the exact shell command (and the directory to run it from) that reopens a session'. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from get_transcript/list_sessions, though those siblings are never named as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied (call this when you need to hand the user a resume command), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives. The 'never executes anything' clause is behavioral rather than usage routing.

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