restore_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'retrieves' which implies read-only, but the name 'restore' might imply state modification. It does not clarify whether current context is overwritten, whether permissions are required, or what happens when no workflow_id is specified. This ambiguity is a significant gap.

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 two sentences long, efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and multiple optional parameters. The description explains what is retrieved and when to use it, but does not describe the return format, behavior when no workflow_id is given, or whether the restore modifies current state. This leaves notable gaps for a resume-work tool.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 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 tool restores context from a previous workflow and specifies the contents (decisions, learnings, files modified, related memories). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_context and checkpoint_context, which focus on saving or checkpointing rather than restoring.

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 says 'Use this to resume work on a feature or learn from past implementations,' giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not specify when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the primary use case is well-defined.

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