Resume a parked workstream using its key, or list all parked workstreams in the project when no key is provided.
Resume a parked workstream from its key. Call this as soon as a user supplies something that looks like a resume key. With no key, lists what is parked in this project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | The key the user pasted, in whatever form they pasted it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.23.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that—'resume' is ambiguous but likely means retrieving context. The description adds the behavior that with no key it lists parked items, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what 'resume' returns or what side effects (if any) occur, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Two sentences, with the main action front-loaded, then the trigger condition, then the fallback. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the two modes of operation and the triggering condition. It does not describe the return format, but the low complexity and read-only annotation make this a minor gap. Overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is simple. The description adds meaning by explaining the key's role: it is optional, and its presence switches the tool from listing to resuming. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'The key the user pasted' by linking it to the tool's dual behavior.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Resume a parked workstream from its key." It also distinguishes the no-key behavior (listing parked workstreams), which separates it from siblings like knowl_park or knowl_recent. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.
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 provides an explicit trigger: "Call this as soon as a user supplies something that looks like a resume key." It also covers the fallback case: "With no key, lists what is parked." However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.