project_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutates project state, nor permissions required. 'High-density' hints at output size but no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Well-structured for the small amount of information provided.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose the safety/mutation profile and operation. It only states what context is returned, leaving the agent unsure whether resuming changes persisted state or is a pure read. Incomplete for a state-ambiguous 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 coverage is 100%, so projectId is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies when 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?

States the tool provides continuation context for resuming development, naming the resource and scenario. However, 'provides' is a weak verb and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like project_inspect or checkpoint_load. Clear but no sibling differentiation.

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 implicit usage scenario ('fresh worker model resuming development') but no explicit when-to-use instruction or alternatives. No mention of project_inspect or checkpoint_load, so an agent cannot tell which sibling to choose.

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