resume_parse_observation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates local state without being destructive or going online. The description usefully confirms the no-upload/no-resubmit boundary and that network activity is deferred to get_parse_job(poll=true), but it never says what local state it actually changes, which is the key gap for a non-read-only tool.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by the side-effect boundary. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness leaves several terms undefined.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations covering semantics, the description positions the tool correctly in the parse workflow and clarifies the network boundary, but omits any explanation of the required parameters or the resulting state, which an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (job_id, expected_revision, user_note) are undocumented in both schema and description. expected_revision in particular implies an optimistic-concurrency precondition and user_note implies a required annotation, but neither is explained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource (resume the query/observation of a known task) and explicitly scopes it against the sibling get_parse_job by stating that no upload or resubmission occurs. It is clear enough to distinguish from retry_parse and get_parse_job, though the notion of an 'observation' state is left somewhat abstract.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition (after the user has resolved rate limiting) and points to the alternative that performs the actual network call: the next get_parse_job(poll=true). This routes the agent well, but it does not state when this tool should NOT be used or what happens if the rate limit is still active.

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