Resume Thinking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Resume' implies continuation of an existing process, it doesn't specify what happens during resumption (does thinking continue automatically?), whether there are side effects, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 relative simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is adequate but minimal. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool that presumably resumes a cognitive process, more context about what 'resuming' entails would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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 100% with the single parameter 'chainId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 verb ('Resume') and resource ('a paused thought process'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pauseThinking' (the inverse operation) and 'startThoughtProcess' (initial creation). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'chainId' parameter which is central to the operation, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage context by specifying 'paused thought process' - suggesting this should only be used after 'pauseThinking'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., on active or completed chains) or mention alternatives like 'startThoughtProcess' for new chains. The guidance is present but incomplete.

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