core.pipeline_resume

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: successful steps preceding from_step are reused rather than recomputed, execution records expire after roughly 10 minutes and then error out, which explains the idempotentHint. The readOnlyHint is consistent since this is a pure computation pipeline with no mutation of user data described.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with the action and scope before the caveats. Slight room to tighten, but every sentence carries information.

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?

Covers lifetime/expiry, reuse semantics, and the alternative path; an output schema exists so return shape needn't be described. The remaining gap is the format and validation of from_step for a two-required-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0% (only bare titles), so the description must carry the burden. It gives the meaning of both parameters (pipeline_id = identifier of a prior run, from_step = restart boundary) but never specifies the expected format of from_step as a string, such as a step name versus an index, nor valid values.

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: re-executes a previous core.pipeline run identified by pipeline_id, beginning at from_step. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling core.pipeline by explaining that a fresh call is how you recompute with new inputs.

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 tells the agent when to use it (resuming an existing execution) and when not to (use core.pipeline instead when inputs change), naming the alternative tool directly. No inference is required to route between the two.

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