resume_deliberation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral implications. It only says the tool 'resolves' an uncertain attempt, without explaining what happens to the job, whether retry or cancel changes state, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects occur. This is minimal and insufficient for understanding the tool's actual 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 sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the primary action, so it earns a good conciseness score even though it lacks detail elsewhere.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description is far too skeletal to enable correct invocation. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, behavioral consequences, and any guidance for choosing retry or cancel. The tool is not adequately specified for an AI agent to use safely or correctly.

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 the description does not mention job_id or uncertain_attempt_policy at all. It does not clarify how the policy influences the resolution, what job_id refers to, or why both parameters are required. With no structured descriptions and no compensation in the description, parameter semantics are effectively absent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and identifies a resource ('a recovery-required uncertain attempt'), but it is vague about what resolving actually entails and does not clearly connect to the tool name 'resume_deliberation'. It also does not distinguish this from sibling tools like cancel_deliberation or get_deliberation, leaving the agent to infer the exact scope of the operation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'recovery-required uncertain attempt' weakly implies a context, but it never states conditions, prerequisites, or contrasts with sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably determine when resume_deliberation is the correct choice.

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