Load or resume an existing ACP session by supplying its session ID and optional working directory, enabling continued work without losing context.
Load/resume an existing ACP session (session/load).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Working directory associated with the session | |
| sessionId | Yes | Existing ACP session id to load/resume |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'load/resume' without explaining what that means for the agent's current session state, whether loading has side effects, whether an active session is replaced, or what happens if the sessionId is invalid. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing operation.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the core action and resource, and the parenthetical protocol reference adds useful context without bloat.
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 tool is simple and the schema covers both parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It adequately states the purpose but leaves gaps around when to use it and what loading a session actually entails, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about sessionId or cwd, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate and the description does not need to compensate.
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 action ('Load/resume') and a specific resource ('an existing ACP session'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The word 'existing' differentiates it from the sibling grok_session_create, so an agent can distinguish them without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied through the word 'existing' — an agent can infer this is for resuming prior sessions rather than creating new ones. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus grok_session_create, grok_prompt, grok_cancel, or grok_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.