resume_process

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered and the description is consistent with it. However, the schema's 'force' parameter says it is true 'only after the user agreed to the risk this tool described' — yet the description describes no risk and no failure modes, so a behavioral gap remains that annotations do not fill.

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 with zero wasted words; nothing is buried. Its brevity edges into under-specification, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, annotations present), but the description omits the risk referenced by the force parameter, what happens on failure (process not found, already running), and whether resuming has side effects. An agent could call it, but could not confidently decide when to escalate to force.

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 both pid and force are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not explain when the force escalation is warranted, despite the schema hinting at an undescribed risk.

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 states a specific verb (resumes) and resource (a suspended process), which makes the intent unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling suspend_process. It does not explicitly reference that sibling or scope which processes qualify, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'suspended' implies a precondition (the process must currently be suspended) and thereby the pairing with suspend_process, but no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do if the process is not suspended are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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