file_resume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping detail that it acts on the 'current shared file transfer,' but does not disclose preconditions, error behavior, or what happens if no transfer exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and target directly, earning every word.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive state-change command, the description is minimal but adequate to identify the operation. However, it omits usage context, preconditions, and what the tool returns, leaving gaps that matter for correct invocation despite the low complexity and available annotations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it correctly implies the tool operates on a current transfer without requiring any inputs.

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 and resource: 'Resume the current shared file transfer.' It clearly distinguishes the action from siblings like file_pause, file_cancel, file_upload, and file_download, even without explicitly naming them. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from all siblings or state its scope beyond 'current shared'.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It implies the tool resumes an existing transfer but does not state whether the transfer must be paused, active, or failed first. An agent must infer all invocation conditions.

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