Resume working state

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it returns the checkpoint body, has no confirmation step, handles empty stores with null, and discloses private packet visibility conditions. This is valuable context that the read-only and non-destructive hints alone do not convey.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose and then cover key behaviors. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the return value, edge cases (empty store), and privacy behavior. Since there is no output schema, explaining the return body is essential and it does so. It could mention error cases but that's not critical here.

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?

The schema description for includePrivate is thorough, covering the --include-private requirement and the warning. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 tool loads the latest continuation for the store at session start and resumes immediately. It specifies a distinct verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear context for use ('at session start') and notes there is no confirmation step. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions when this tool should not be used, leaving some ambiguity about whether other tools might be preferred.

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