resume_runner

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses the read-before-write step (so the harness records the prior paused state), the reversibility mechanism (undo re-pauses), and a preview mode. There is mild tension between the description's 'reversible' framing and destructiveHint=true, but they are not strictly contradictory since reversibility does not negate a state-changing write.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence, then behavioral notes, then a compact Args block. Efficient, though the [WRITE] tag partially duplicates what the annotations already declare.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, preview, undo, and all parameters. It does not say what resume returns or what happens if the runner is not paused, so it stops just short of 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so adequately: runner is sourced from list_runners, dry_run previews without resuming, and target is a server target name from config with a stated default. This meaningfully supplements the bare schema.

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) and resource (paused runner), and immediately names its inverse operation (undo pauses it). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling pause_runner without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use when a runner is paused, dry_run=True to preview, and notes the undo path. It does not explicitly name pause_runner as the counterpart, but the 'paused runner' precondition makes the usage window clear.

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