project_resume

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Briefing' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. It does not state that explicitly, nor does it cover permissions, behavior for an unknown or archived slug, or whether anything is recorded. The content enumeration partly duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the returned contents both land immediately.

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 presence of an output schema means the return shape needn't be explained, and a one-parameter read tool is low complexity. What remains missing is the meaning of slug, the failure mode for an unknown slug, and any pointer to adjacent tools for listing or updating projects.

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?

There is one required parameter, slug, at 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be established — and it says nothing about it. An agent must infer that slug identifies the project to resume and has no information on accepted formats or whether it must match an existing project.

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 names the specific artifact produced — a resumption briefing — and enumerates its contents (status, blockers, next steps, follow-ups, decisions), which clearly separates it from write-side siblings like project_update or project_close. It lacks a verb form and never contrasts itself with project_list or daily_brief, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'To pick a project back up' implies the triggering situation, so an agent can guess when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of project_list or daily_brief as alternatives, even though those are obvious overlap candidates.

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