session_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: it will not create state or perform discovery, so an agent knows this is a non-mutating rehydration. It omits auth/permission requirements, what happens when no prior state exists, and any side effects.

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 core action and its boundary condition are stated up front. It is appropriately terse, if slightly elliptical.

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 output schema covers return values and the tool is low-complexity with one optional param, so the description needn't explain returns. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented param, it leaves gaps around the workspace_root effect and the failure mode when no canonical state exists.

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?

The single parameter workspace_root has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning, format, or effect on restore scope is left entirely to inference from the name.

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 a specific verb (Restore) and resource (canonical session/work state), and the negation 'without discovery or state creation' implicitly differentiates it from creation-oriented siblings like session_bootstrap. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name a sibling to route against.

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 phrase 'without discovery or state creation' implies the context of use (rehydrating an existing session rather than bootstrapping one), which is genuine implied guidance. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states the prerequisite condition for choosing this over session_bootstrap or recovery_context.

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