Recover relevant session context

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 clear. The description adds useful output composition details (failures, attempts, facts, successes, unresolved issues) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as staleness, scoping caveats, or return formatting.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action, the resource, and the scope with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only, side-effect-free retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description gives an agent enough to call it and understand the returned content. It could briefly mention when to use it relative to siblings, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 input schema fully documents limit and sessionId with defaults, bounds, and descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning or usage examples, keeping this at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource: a compact session summary containing failures, attempts, facts, successes, and unresolved issues. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like diagnose or focus.

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 guidance on when to use reuptake versus its siblings such as diagnose, focus, or fix_me. The intended use case is only implied by the title and description, not explicitly stated as a condition or recommendation.

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