Resumes attached processes so debugging can continue, returning a baseline for subsequent wait-for-stop checks.
Resume attached processes and return a baseline for rad_wait_for_stop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| expected_run_gen | No | ||
| expected_stop_count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a baseline is returned for rad_wait_for_stop, but it says nothing about whether the call blocks, what happens on an already-running process, or how the expected_run_gen/expected_stop_count guards behave — the most consequential behavior for this tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing wastes space. The terseness, however, is closer to under-specification than compression — there is room for one more sentence on the guard parameters.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, but the two optional generation/stop-count parameters sit at 0% schema description coverage and are the crux of correctly calling this tool — the description leaves an agent unable to know what to pass or when.
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?
Only session_id semantically flows from the description ("attached processes"), leaving expected_run_gen and expected_stop_count unexplored.
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?
"Resume attached processes" gives a specific verb and resource, and it names rad_wait_for_stop as the downstream consumer, which helps place it among siblings like rad_pause, rad_step and rad_run_to_line. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing continue from those stepping tools.
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 reference to rad_wait_for_stop implies a usage pattern (resume, then wait for the next stop), so the context is inferable. But it never says when to choose rad_continue over rad_step or rad_run_to_line, nor any preconditions such as the process needing to be in a paused state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.