resume_runner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation with medium risk, reads the runner first, and is reversible via undo. It also mentions the dry_run preview. This adds good behavioral context, though it lacks details on authentication or rate limits.

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 concise with a clear structure: a single-line summary (with risk flag), a brief behavioral note, and an Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers safe usage, reversibility, and parameter details. It does not describe what the resumption entails (e.g., state changes) or the return value, but the information provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so effectively: runner is described as 'Runner id (from list_runners)', dry_run as 'preview without resuming', and target as 'Server target name from config; omit for default'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool resumes a paused runner. It mentions reversibility and uses a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pause_runner or list_runners, though the action is distinct.

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 provides some usage context: it reads the runner first to record prior state for undo, and offers a dry_run flag to preview. It implies when to use (when runner is paused) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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