project_resume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the useful trigger context (post-restart) and enumerates what gets surfaced, but says nothing about return format or pagination and does not need to with no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and trigger, with no filler. The enumerated list is slightly loose but each item adds distinct content.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, and annotations cover the safety profile. It still leaves the parameter undocumented and never clarifies what a 'restart' scope is, so it is minimum-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?

The single required 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no hint about the identifier format, how it maps to the pattern, or whether it must match prior sessions, leaving the schema to speak entirely for itself.

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 (resume) plus the concrete state it restores: latest task, scope, findings, open work, next actions. That is far more specific than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent project_open or scope_read siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 'after restart' implies the trigger condition, which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never names an alternative (e.g., project_open for starting fresh), so the agent must guess at the routing.

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