resume_translation

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

Adds context beyond annotations: may incur new API costs, does not switch models, does not automatically overwrite user changes, and already-running tasks return progress only. These behavior disclosures are genuinely useful; annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, which the cache-reuse framing is consistent with.

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, each carrying distinct information (purpose, cost, running-task behavior, parameter caveat, non-changes). Front-loaded with the core action. No filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description does well on cost, safety-relevant non-changes, and running-task behavior. The remaining gap is parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), but overall the agent has enough to invoke it 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%, so the description carries the full burden. It partially explains main_tex ('可为单篇失败论文补充 main_tex' - supplement main_tex for a single failed paper) but says nothing about job_id or work_dir, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource: resume a failed/interrupted translation task, reusing the validated cache. It is clearly a continuation operation distinct from translate_papers, though it does not name the sibling tools explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (failed or interrupted same task) and an implicit when-not: '已运行的任务只返回进度' tells the agent running tasks only report progress. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for a fresh start (translate_papers).

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