resume_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It notes that work resumes under the same stable job ID, which is useful, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens to partially completed work. For a mutation-like job-control tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the action and the states it applies to.

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?

The tool takes two required parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, and the description does not fill those gaps. An output schema exists, which mitigates the need to explain return values, but the definition remains incomplete regarding parameter meaning and precise usage boundaries.

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 must compensate. It only indirectly references job_id through 'same stable job ID' and says nothing about project_root or the distinction between a stable job ID and a new one. Parameter meaning is largely left to the schema names alone.

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 a specific verb (resume) and resource (failed, cancelled, or interrupted work) and adds a key scoping detail (same stable job ID). It distinguishes the operation from general job creation or status checks, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like get_job_status or cancel_job.

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 implies when to use it by listing job states (failed, cancelled, interrupted), but gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives. It does not say whether to check get_job_status first or how this differs from other job-control siblings.

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