恢复任务

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: starting an independent OCR worker process, returning immediately without blocking MCP, and reusing per-page cache. This is substantial context, though it does not cover edge cases or failure modes.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first covers the core mechanism, the second adds the non-blocking behavior, with no redundant or filler content.

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 adequately explains the core operation but omits parameter-level details and edge cases. Since an output schema exists, return values are handled, but the 5 parameters remain unexplained, leaving the overall context somewhat incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (job_dir, mode, force, password, stalled_after_seconds). It only indirectly references the task, leaving the agent to guess the meanings and valid values of the parameters.

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's purpose: it checks for suspected interruption and resumes from a checkpoint by reusing per-page cache. It uses a specific verb-resource pair with a distinct scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_job_status or cancel_job.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a task is suspected of being interrupted. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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