resume_brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that this resumes background work; it says nothing about whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires the brain to be paused first, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, or what state it leaves things in.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the routing or state information an agent would benefit from.

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 no explanation, and the zero-parameter schema is trivially complete. Still, for a lifecycle-control tool in a family with pause_brain and brain_status, the description should say what state must precede it and what happens on failure.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Resume') and object ('background work'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It does not explicitly name pause_brain or brain_status as its counterparts, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'after maintenance' is a lightweight when-to-use cue, implying it should follow downtime. However, it never states prerequisites (that work must first be paused), what happens if nothing is paused, or how it relates to pause_brain/rebuild_brain/brain_status.

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