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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Resume' implies state change, but the description does not state what is resumed, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens when objectiveId is omitted.

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 cryptic phrase. It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication; key context is absent.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is far from complete. The agent lacks enough information to understand what resuming does, what captureJobId identifies, or how this tool relates to nearby resume and redo tools.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning to objectiveId ('to jump/redo') but leaves the required captureJobId entirely undocumented and adds nothing for notification_message beyond the schema description.

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 largely restates the tool name: 'Resume assistant' adds little beyond the name 'resume_assistant'. The only extra detail, 'optional objectiveId to jump/redo,' is a parameter hint rather than a clear statement of what resuming actually does or how it differs from siblings such as resume_manual, jump_to_step, or redo_objective.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of an optional objectiveId for jumping or redoing hints at behavior but does not explain when that mode should be chosen over dedicated siblings like jump_to_step or redo_objective.

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