echopath_resume_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: the worker verifies the live return state before continuing, and the caller should poll echopath_get_task, implying an asynchronous, eventually-consistent flow. It stops short of stating what happens if the task is not in awaiting_native, required permissions, or whether cancel is destructive/reversible, leaving notable gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the follow-up polling note. Every clause carries information and there is no filler, though the phrasing is slightly compressed and would read more cleanly as a single tightened sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the trigger state, the two actions, and the required polling follow-up. What is missing is the failure/edge behavior (task not awaiting_native, invalid run_id) and differentiation from the similarly named sibling, which keeps it from being fully complete for a state-mutating tool with no annotations.

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 must compensate, and it partially does: 'supply its declared outputs' explains the outputs parameter and 'cancel' explains the cancel flag. The required run_id parameter and the shape/typing of outputs remain undocumented in both the description and the schema, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 names a concrete operation (answering a tracked task by supplying its declared outputs or cancelling) and a precise precondition state ('awaiting_native'), so an agent can tell this is a resume/fulfill step rather than a start or run step. It is slightly loose on the verb ('Answer a tracked task') and never contrasts itself with the closely named sibling echopath_resume or echopath_run_task, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: use this for a tracked task that is 'awaiting_native'. It also frames the two available actions (supply outputs or cancel). However it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not disambiguate from echopath_resume, echopath_run_task, or echopath_start_task, which is a real selection risk given the near-identical sibling name.

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