workflow_epic_resume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what is read back (epic state, open tasks, next actions, audit trail), but doesn't address persistence, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations covering the safe-read profile, a 3 reflects marginal added value.

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 no wasted words, listing the four returned resources efficiently. Appropriate size for a read-only tool with one parameter.

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 simple read tool with a required epicId and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what is returned and the trigger scenario. However, it leaves the epicId undocumented and doesn't explain how to obtain it, which is a notable completeness gap given 0% schema coverage and no output schema.

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 should compensate. It doesn't mention the epicId parameter or its format/source. The schema does enforce minLength and required, but the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline is 3 given the single-parameter simplicity, but the lack of any param guidance is a 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 states a specific verb (read) and four concrete resources (persisted epic state, open tasks, next actions, audit trail) scoped to a shutdown recovery scenario. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like workflow_get_task_audit or workflow_list_my_tasks, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. Clear purpose overall.

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 post-shutdown condition ('after a shutdown') provides clear context for when this tool applies, which is a meaningful usage trigger. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or name explicit alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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