resume_copilot_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool continues an existing conversation and accepts follow-up prompts, which is the core behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether resuming mutates the session, whether it consumes conversation turns, or whether it requires an active session). It also doesn't mention that cwd/model can override previous session settings, which is a behavioral nuance. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The second sentence adds useful context about what resuming entails. No wasted words, though it could have used the space to mention overrides or exclusions.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain what the response looks like, whether the session must be active, or how the overrides (cwd, model) interact with the previous session. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the description doesn't cover the operational context an agent needs to decide between this and run_copilot_conversation.

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 all 6 parameters. The description adds the context that the prompt is a 'follow-up prompt or additional instructions' and that the session is resumed, which aligns with the schema. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like timeout_ms or permission_mode. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Resume'), the resource ('a previous Copilot CLI session'), and the mechanism ('by session ID'). It also explains what resuming does: 'continues an existing conversation with additional context or follow-up questions.' This distinguishes it from siblings like run_copilot_conversation (starting new) and list_copilot_sessions (listing).

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you have a previous session ID and want to continue it. It doesn't explicitly say 'use run_copilot_conversation for new sessions' or 'use list_copilot_sessions to find session IDs,' but the sibling names and the description's focus on resuming make the usage context reasonably clear. Missing explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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