resume_run

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotent traits, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: the run continues until completion, pause, or failure, which helps an agent understand the tool's execution behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose and execution boundaries with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important constraint—what causes the run to stop—is included without extra prose.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract well. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit guidance about which run states are valid for resumption, but this is minor given the clarity of 'Resume an orchestrator run.'

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%, and the description does not directly explain run_id beyond naming the 'orchestrator run' entity. The parameter name and schema title are largely self-explanatory, so the agent can probably infer which ID to supply, but the description adds no detail about where the ID comes from or its format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resume') and identifies the target resource ('an orchestrator run'), then narrows the contract by stating the possible terminal states: completion, pause, or failure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_run or checkpoint_run.

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 word 'Resume' implies this tool is for already-created or previously paused runs, and the terminal-state clause clarifies what happens after invocation. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as checkpoint_run or create_run, leaving usage context to inference.

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