echopath_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 add real behavioral facts: continuation tokens are single-use and expire on server restart, return state is verified, and cancel abandons a pending segment. It omits what happens on an expired/reused token, failure semantics, and any auth or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the cancel rule, then the token caveat. No filler; only the opening sentence's vagueness slightly weakens it.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves session_id and the outputs structure undocumented and gives no sibling differentiation against echopath_resume_task. The output schema covers return values, but the calling contract remains thin.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains cancel ('abandon a pending segment') and continuation_token (single use, expires on restart), but says nothing about session_id and only loosely gestures at outputs ('supply declared outputs') without format details.

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 verb 'Resume' is clear but the object is vague — 'after native computer use' does not name a resource an agent can reason about, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling echopath_resume_task. The added clause about supplying declared outputs hints at the mechanism but not the scope.

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 only conditional guidance is 'Use cancel=true to abandon a pending segment', which is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance. There is no statement of when to call echopath_resume versus echopath_resume_task or the other run/task tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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