resume_focus

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

Although the 'Behavioral Transparency' section is detailed, it describes a read-only, stateless analysis tool, which directly contradicts the tool's intended mutation of a focus session. This inconsistency undermines transparency severely.

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 overly long and repetitive, duplicating behavior details in multiple sections. It lacks focus and includes irrelevant information for the tool's core function.

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?

Given the tool's name implies state mutation, the description omits critical details like what happens upon resuming, return values, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema is unaddressed, leaving the agent guessing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description's 'Args' section merely repeats parameter names with generic phrases ('The session id to analyze or process'), failing to explain their role in resuming a focus session.

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 starts with 'Resume a paused focus session' which is clear, but the subsequent behavior section contradicts this by claiming the tool is read-only and produces analysis output without modifying state. This creates ambiguity about the actual purpose.

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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are present but are generic and mismatched (e.g., suggest use for analysis/classification, not for resuming focus). They do not guide the agent on when to use this tool versus siblings like start_focus or pause_focus.

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