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

The description adds little beyond the annotations: it restates the title and the waiting-state condition. It does not mention what happens after resuming, whether answers replace or supplement existing data, or any other behavioral consequences. Annotations already convey that it is non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the description carries nearly no extra weight.

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 one concise sentence achieving both purpose and usage clarity without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With two fully-schema'd parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the core use case but omits any notion of what the agent should expect after a successful resume (e.g., no longer waiting, next pending step, or a confirmation response). A brief note about the outcome or state change would round out the definition.

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 thoroughly describes both parameters (builder_run_id and answers, 100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Resume' and a specific resource 'a builder run', qualified by the state 'waiting for user input'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as startRun, cancelBuilderRun, and getBuilderRun.

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 'that is waiting for user input' provides a clear condition for when the tool should be used, distinguishing it from runs in other states. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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