mystorax_science_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: max_phases budget, auto-stop at EVIDENCE, and never auto-CERTIFY. These are genuinely useful behavioral constraints not in the schema. However, it doesn't disclose what resuming actually does to the campaign, any side effects, or return behavior.

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 compact sentence with parenthetical constraints. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase earns its place by encoding key behavioral rules. It's under-specified in places, but for what's there, it's efficient.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool (7 params, 2 required) with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. The description is too thin: it doesn't explain what campaign_id and goal represent semantically, what phase/effort control, what resuming entails, or what the return value looks like. The parenthetical behavior hints are good but insufficient for safe invocation.

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% and there are 7 parameters, so the description carries heavy burden. The description references 'max_phases' and 'EVIDENCE' (the default for max_auto_phase) but does NOT explain the meaning of goal, campaign_id, via, phase, or effort. The behavioral constraints mention max_phases budget but not how phase/effort relate to resumption. For a 7-param tool at 0% coverage, the description should explain more.

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 states a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('a Science OS campaign'), with some behavioral constraints in parentheses. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from siblings like mystorax_submit_goal (which likely is the initial action vs resuming one) or mystorax_science_status (monitoring). The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is weak.

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 this is for resuming existing campaigns (as opposed to submitting new ones), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. It alludes to the 'max_phases budget' and auto-stop behavior, which gives context, but there's no explicit exclusion or cross-reference to a sibling tool.

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