Read Play Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context beyond that: the 'accessible' prerequisite and the fact that persistence status is returned, alerting the agent that sessions may exist in different persistence states. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action ('Resume') and object ('Play Session'), then packs the output categories without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with a rich schema, detailed annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the accessibility precondition. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already explains that playSessionId is a handle returned by create_play_session for follow-up calls. The description adds no new parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Resume an accessible Play Session') and enumerates the precise return categories: persistence status, current projection, unresolved inputs, and next operations. This is enough to distinguish it from create_play_session and from sibling read tools targeting other entities (characters, battles).

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 wording implies use after a session has been created and when the caller needs to pick up state ('Resume... return... next operations'). It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of 5.

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