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 describes actions (injects block, provides snippets), but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The lack of annotations and behavioral detail reduces transparency.

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, dense sentence that packs key information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the usage context and lists the outputs without unnecessary words. However, it could be restructured for slightly better readability.

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?

Given no output schema and multiple sibling tools, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose for session resumption but does not clarify return values or side effects. An agent would understand when to call it but might miss details on how to process the outputs.

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 low (33%), and the description compensates partially by linking session_id to compaction snippets and top_semantic to semantic chunks. However, project_id is not explained, and inject_block is mentioned in the description but not in the schema. The description adds moderate value but is incomplete.

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 tool is called when starting a new session and lists the specific outputs: project brain summary markdown, structured JSON, recent compaction snippet, and semantic top chunks. This distinguishes it from siblings like inject_relevant_memories or memory_search, which have narrower scopes.

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 explicitly states '새 세션 시작 시 호출' (called when starting a new session), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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