athena_rehydration_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses Git side effects (fresh-sync, checkout fast-forward) and the hold behavior for unsafe states, preventing stale local handoffs. It stops short of explaining what 'holds' actually returns or whether the shared branch is mutated, so it is not fully transparent.

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 focused sentences: the first states the action, the second details the branch-state safety conditions. It is dense with technical jargon like 'prompt/state/chain coordinates' but each sentence earns its place with no 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 complex tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameters, the description omits critical details: what the tool returns, how it signals a hold, how loop_id identifies the loop, and the effect of include_prompt. It covers the Git sync and safety gate but leaves the agent unsure about invocation outcome.

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 never mentions loop_id or include_prompt. Since both parameters are completely undocumented in the schema and the description, the agent must guess loop_id's meaning and has no idea what include_prompt controls, even though include_prompt is optional.

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 action: 'Fresh-sync the shared Git branch, then resume the persisted rehydration loop at its exact current prompt/state/chain coordinates.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like rehydration_start or rehydration_advance by emphasizing exact coordinates and fresh-sync, making its purpose 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 explicit conditions: 'Clean behind checkouts fast-forward; dirty, ahead, diverged, or unverified shared state holds rather than returning a stale local handoff.' This tells the agent when the tool can proceed and when it will hold, though it does not name specific alternative tools for the hold cases.

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