minimax_auto_resumeDetects sessions suspended by quota exhaustion (2056) and automatically resumes them once quota recovers, continuing native chats or advancing Bot turns.
智能断点续传：自动识别因额度耗尽(2056)而挂起的会话，在额度恢复后自动继续（原生对话点播放键，Bot 对话推进轮次）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 单次最多恢复会话数 | |
| dryRun | No | 是否只扫描计划而不实际触发 | |
| sessionId | No | 指定恢复某个会话 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real content beyond those fields by stating exactly what the mutation does: it triggers generation or advances rounds in the target sessions. It does not add much detail about the effects of running repeatedly, but because the annotations already flag the operation as destructive, these gaps are minor.
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?
This is a single compact sentence that leads with the resource and the trigger condition, and the parenthetical explains the mechanism efficiently. It is dense but not padded.
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?
This is a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, and it has annotations but covers only the safety profile. The description is solid on what the tool does, but it does not say what a scan returns when dryRun=true or what the result looks like after a batch resume, which is the main remaining gap.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including that dryRun defaults to true. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides for limit, dryRun, or sessionId, so the 3 baseline 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 names a specific action (断点续传 / auto-resume) and a specific target (sessions suspended with quota error code 2056), and it explains the two distinct mechanisms: pressing the play button for native conversations and advancing one round for Bot conversations. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings such as minimax_pending or minimax_get_result, even though it does not name those siblings.
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 usage context is explicit: use it for sessions that are suspended because of quota exhaustion (2056) after the quota has been restored. The description gives no guidance on when not to use it, and it does not say where to check for suspended sessions first (for example, by using minimax_pending).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.