Your MCP server implements a check_availability tool that queries an external calendar API.
During testing, you encounter three error conditions: (1) the tool is called with a malformed request missing the required user_email parameter, (2) the calendar API returns a 404 because the specified user doesn't exist in the calendar system, and (3) the calendar API returns a 503 because the service is temporarily unavailable. How should each error be reported according to MCP's error handling design?

• A. Report all three as tool results with isError: true.
• B. Report all three as JSON-RPC protocol errors.
• C. Report errors 1 and 2 as JSON-RPC protocol errors; report error 3 as a tool result with isError:
  true.
• D. Report error 1 as a JSON-RPC protocol error; report errors 2 and 3 as tool results with isError:
  true.

You are building developer productivity tools using the Claude Agent SDK. The agent helps engineers explore unfamiliar codebases, understand legacy systems, generate boilerplate code, and automate repetitive tasks. It uses the built-in tools (Read, Write, Bash, Grep, Glob) and integrates with Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers.
Your codebase exploration tool stores session IDs to allow engineers to continue investigations across work sessions. An engineer spent an hour yesterday analyzing a legacy authentication module, building context about its architecture and dependencies. They want to continue today.
The session ID is valid, but version control shows 3 of the 12 files the agent previously read were modified overnight by a teammate's merge. What approach best balances efficiency and accuracy?

• A. Resume the session and inform the agent which specific files changed for targeted re-analysis
• B. Start fresh session to ensure the agent works with current codebase state without stale assumptions
• C. Resume the session and immediately have the agent re-read all 12 previously analyzed files
• D. Resume the session without informing the agent about the changed files

You are using Claude Code to accelerate software development. Your team uses it for code generation, refactoring, debugging, and documentation. You need to integrate it into your development workflow with custom slash commands, CLAUDE.md configurations, and understand when to use plan mode vs direct execution.
Your monorepo contains shared coding standards in /docs/standards/ : security-rules.md (for services handling user data), testing-petterns.md (for all packages), and api-conventions.md (for API-facing services). Your 15 packages are organized by feature domain ( /packages/auth/,
/packages/billing/, /packages/notifications/ , etc.) without naming conventions indicating which handle user data or expose APIs. Package maintainers are expected to configure their own local development settings, as they understand their package's domain requirements. Currently, all package CLAUDE.md files duplicate all three standards, applying irrelevant guidance. What's the most effective approach?

• A. Create .claude/rules/ files for each standard with YAML frontmatter paths listing every package directory where that standard should apply.
• B. Create a shared-stendards.md that uses @imports to combine all three standards, then have each package's CLAUDE.md import that combined file.
• C. Put all standards in the root CLAUDE.md with override instructions like "ignore security-rules.md when working in packages that don't handle user data."
• D. Use @imports in each package's CLAUDE.md to reference only the specific standard files relevant to that package, based on the maintainer's domain knowledge.

You've configured the system so that all four subagents have access to the complete set of
18 tools. During testing, agents frequently call tools outside their specialization - the synthesis agent attempts web searches, and the report generator tries to analyze documents. What is the primary cause of this poor tool selection behavior?

• A. Choosing from 18 tools instead of 4-5 relevant ones increases decision complexity beyond reliable selection thresholds.
• B. The tool definitions consume too much context window space, leaving insufficient room for task content.
• C. The agents' role descriptions in their system prompts conflict with having access to tools outside that role.
• D. The coordinator cannot track which capabilities each subagent has, leading to misrouted tasks.

A customer sends: "This is frustrating. I've explained my issue twice and nothing is being resolved. I want to talk to a real person NOW." The agent has not yet called any tools to investigate their account. What should the agent do?

• A. Acknowledge the frustration and ask one targeted question to understand the specific issue before escalating.
• B. Briefly explain what the agent can help with and offer to resolve the issue quickly, escalating only if the customer repeats their request.
• C. Immediately call escalate_to_human with the conversation history.
• D. First call get_customer and lookup_order to gather account context, then escalate to a human agent.