resume

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering non-destructiveness, the description adds behavioral context by enumerating the types of information returned (recent sessions, interrupted work, in-progress tasks, next steps). It does not disclose potential staleness or data limitations, but this is a minor gap given the simple read-only nature.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and content, the second gives the usage context. No redundant words, front-loaded with the most important 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?

The description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and when to call it. Given the simple 3-optional-parameter schema and readOnly annotation, it does not need to explain return values in detail. However, it could have briefly mentioned output format options, though these are in the schema.

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% with each parameter (limit, format, project) clearly described. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resume context'), then elaborates with concrete content: recent sessions, interrupted work, in-progress tasks, and suggested next steps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'project_context' or 'status' by framing it as a session-start continuity tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this at session start to understand what happened before', providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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