workflow_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get everything...') and lists return fields, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses bullet points to clearly list return values. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 output schema exists and the tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the main purpose and return structure. However, it lacks information on error handling or input constraints, which would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and one parameter (run_id) with no description. The tool description does not add explicit meaning for the parameter beyond the context of resuming a workflow, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get everything a replacement agent needs to resume a crashed workflow.' It clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (resumption data for a crashed workflow), and distinguishes from sibling tools like workflow_checkpoint (which saves state) and workflow_create (which starts new).

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 usage for resuming a crashed workflow, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., workflow_create for new workflows).

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