native_session_recover

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds meaningful context by stating that ChatGPT remains the sole main model, that DeepSeek access is limited by the original subagent policy, and that a write session requires verification of its directory or worktree binding. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand important constraints.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The second and third sentences add important behavioral constraints, though the third sentence is dense and slightly harder to parse. Overall, no sentence feels purely redundant.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and key constraints, and the output schema likely handles return-value expectations. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, does not differentiate from sibling tools, and does not state what happens when verification fails or the lease cannot be rotated. These are meaningful gaps for a recovery operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as the relationship between wait_seconds and lease rotation or the origin of the recovery token. Per baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reconnect ChatGPT to a durable native Claude Code session and rotate its lease.' This clearly conveys the core action. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of fully distinguishing itself from tools like native_session_continue.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as native_session_continue, native_session_status, or native_session_reply_and_wait. The word 'Reconnect' loosely implies a recovery scenario, but no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.

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