cycle_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the action (resuming motion) and the implementation detail (sends '~' realtime command), which helps the agent understand the low-level behavior. However, it lacks information about potential side effects, error conditions, or response expectations.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what the tool does and when, while the second provides technical implementation detail without redundancy.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and behavioral mechanism. However, it lacks details on potential errors or confirmation of success, which would be helpful for a tool that interacts with physical machinery.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input structure. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, as none is needed. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description does not introduce unnecessary complexity.

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 the specific action ('Resume machine motion') and the specific trigger condition ('after a feed hold'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'feed_hold' (which pauses motion) and 'soft_reset' (which resets the system). It uses precise technical language that matches the domain context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('after a feed hold'), providing clear context for its application. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it (e.g., if the machine is not in a feed hold state) or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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