resume_research

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

The description indicates this tool modifies state by resuming a session. The annotations (readOnlyHint: false) are consistent. It also clarifies it's a wrapper around deep_research, adding transparency beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 very concise: two sentences and a requirement line. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the prerequisite and alternative usage. It references list_research_checkpoints for obtaining the ID, but does not mention related sibling tools like cancel_research.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value for research_id by specifying it comes from 'list_research_checkpoints'. This provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 'Resume a previously interrupted deep research session', which specifies the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'deep_research' by calling itself a convenience wrapper.

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 provides a prerequisite ('index_repository must be called first') and an alternative usage ('you can also use deep_research with resume_research_id directly'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list other alternatives.

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