claude-session-continuity-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: 'Read-only — does not modify any state' (safety), 'Returns... as a compressed context payload (~650 tokens)' (output format/limitation), and 'Typically auto-invoked... but can be called manually' (invocation pattern). It doesn't mention error conditions or authentication needs.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and typical usage, second describes output and safety, third provides explicit alternative guidance. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with key information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return content ('tech stack, recent activity...'), format ('compressed context payload'), and size estimate ('~650 tokens'). It could mention error handling or what happens with invalid projects, but covers most essential context.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining why 'compact' matters or what 'apps/' directory means), meeting the baseline for high 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's purpose with specific verbs ('Load project context') and resources ('project's tech stack, recent activity, pending tasks, and active blockers'). It distinguishes from sibling 'project_status' by specifying this is for 'full session bootstrap context'.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Typically auto-invoked by the SessionStart hook, but can be called manually' and 'Use this instead of project_status when you need the full session bootstrap context.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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