queue_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly surfaces a non-obvious behavior: the operation is fleet-wide, not tenant-scoped. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether to use this tool. It does not detail error handling or idempotency, but for a simple queue resume that is acceptable.

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?

The description is a single sentence plus a short note, both front-loaded and free of filler. Every word adds value, with the scope caveat placed after the core action for emphasis.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and a simple action, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and the key contextual caveat (fleet-wide scope). No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and there is nothing beyond the schema to explain. The empty parameter list is fully self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the action (resume) and the resource (scan queue), and implicitly differentiates from queue_pause by being the inverse operation. The scope note adds precision without ambiguity.

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 description implies use after a pause but does not explicitly mention queue_pause as the sibling to pair with, nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., if tenant-scoped action is desired). The fleet-wide note hints at a key distinction but stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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