Resume failed or interrupted file transfers by validating ETag and Range for downloads and resending uploads with explicit overwrite for existing files.
显式恢复失败/取消/中断传输。下载验证ETag/Last-Modified与Range；上传重新发送，远端已有文件需明确overwrite。NFC需原租约仍活着。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| overwrite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further by explaining the mechanism: downloads validate ETag/Last-Modified with Range, uploads re-send and require explicit overwrite when the remote file exists, and NFC needs the original lease alive. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though it does not address auth or failure modes.
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?
Three dense, well-ordered sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by download/upload specifics and the NFC constraint. No filler.
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 destructive, non-idempotent resume operation with an output schema handling return values, the description covers the key behavioral distinctions (download vs upload, NFC lease, overwrite). The parameters job_id and dry_run remain unspecified, leaving a minor 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only clarifies overwrite ('remote existing file requires explicit overwrite'). job_id and dry_run are left unexplained, so compensation is partial at best.
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 (resume) and resource (transfers) with qualifying states (failed/cancelled/interrupted). The purpose is clearly distinguishable from siblings like esxi_transfer_start or esxi_transfer_cancel, though no sibling is named explicitly to reinforce the distinction.
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?
Gives a clear trigger condition for use (failed/cancelled/interrupted transfers) and differentiates download vs upload resume behavior. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to use transfer_start instead) or stating exclusions, so it does not reach a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.