dsh_resume_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it verifies cached state and affects subsequent send_message calls, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the session_id is invalid), authentication requirements, or whether any state is mutated. This is adequate for a simple re-load tool but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers the primary action and a key side effect. However, it omits what happens if the session is missing or invalid, and does not mention any prerequisites. Given the low complexity, this is a reasonable but not exhaustive description.

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 has a single string parameter 'session_id' with no description. The tool description does not explicitly explain the format or required context of session_id, relying on the phrase 'existing DSH session' to imply its purpose. This adds little meaning beyond the schema, especially since the schema coverage is 0%.

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 re-loads an existing DSH session and verifies cached state, using a specific verb ('re-load') and resource ('DSH session'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'existing' sessions, which contrasts with dsh_create_session, and notes its role relative to dsh_send_message.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is for resuming an existing session, and it explicitly mentions that subsequent dsh_send_message calls reuse the prompt prefix, implying it should be called before send. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for new sessions), but the contrast with dsh_create_session is implicit.

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