research_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does it very well. It discloses refusal behavior, the zero-wave honest stop, double-launch race protection, and the synchronous/background execution contract with its marker. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, state constraints, refusal reasons, stop condition, and mode selection. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not include redundant filler.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when it is usable, when it refuses, how it stops, and how to run it synchronously or in the background. Since an output schema is present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the operational details are complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for background by explaining the default is synchronous, that large top-ups should set background=True, and that the agent should wait for the <id>.json marker. camp_id is left at its obvious 'campaign id' meaning, which is acceptable given the tool name and context, though no format or validation hints are provided.

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 tool resumes a partial/failed research campaign by filling in missing, distinct sites with fresh angles (tutorial/comparison/case study). It also gives concrete refusal states (done/running), which helps distinguish its role. However, it never explicitly names a sibling alternative like research_start, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (partial/failed campaigns) and when not to (done or running), including reasons like 'nothing to top up' and the race-condition risk. It also gives execution-mode guidance: synchronous by default, background=True for large top-ups with marker waiting. It stops short of a 5 because it does not compare directly with sibling tools for fresh campaigns.

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