agy_resume

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral trait that the session runs in a fresh process and that the operation is largely redundant with agy_say. It does not say what happens if the bridge cannot resolve the session or whether an already-live session is replaced, which for a zero-annotation tool is a real remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the routing/alternative guidance following. Nothing repeats the tool name or schema without adding meaning.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description supplies the selection semantics and the sibling relationship that the schema cannot. The main omission is behavior when no identifier is given at all, since every parameter is optional and the description assumes one of the two IDs will be provided.

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 0% and all four parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the target is chosen by session_id or conversation_id and that agent and cwd are additionally required for an unseen conversation. It leaves unstated whether session_id and conversation_id are mutually exclusive or which wins if both are supplied.

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 ('Re-open a stored AGY session') plus the scope ('in a fresh process'), and the identifiers it accepts. It cleanly separates itself from agy_say, which the description explicitly names as an automatic resumer.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('agy_say also resumes automatically') and narrows the remaining use case to warming a session up front. It also states the conditional prerequisite for new conversations (pass agent and cwd), so an agent can decide before opening the schema.

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