agent_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a meaningful side effect — creating a fresh Herdr workspace — plus the need for a 'verified native session/conversation ID' and an explicit failure mode. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or the lifecycle of the newly created workspace, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the alternative-usage clause and the failure note. Nothing is redundant, though the 'verified native session/conversation ID' phrasing is slightly dense and could be tightened.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, side effect (new workspace) and failure behavior, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Only peripheral details like permissions or whether the workspace persists are left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter (agentId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as the MCP-managed ID returned by agent_start. The description references a native session ID but that is an internal mechanism, not the parameter, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (resume) and resource (suspended logical coding-agent session) and explains the mechanism (fresh Herdr workspace + harness launch with native session ID). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_start by contrasting continuation of an existing conversation with starting fresh work.

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?

Explicitly says to use this to continue the same conversation and to 'start a new agent for independent work' otherwise, giving a clear alternative and selection condition. It also reports the failure condition (native resume unavailable), which sets expectations before invocation.

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