lore_resume

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and the description confirms and extends this by disclosing the concrete side effects carried over (save/replace/commit) and the fact that re-execution uses the original arguments unchanged. It further discloses error behavior (empty answers or mismatched ids re-return the same requests), 24h runId expiry, deletion on completion, and what remains as the sole result if the agent stops. This is rich behavioral context well beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and the answers format, then layers the operational caveats in logical order. It is dense and longer than typical, but each sentence introduces distinct information (resume point, arg immutability, side effects, multi-round, error handling, expiry, stop behavior), so little is wasted.

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 stateful resume tool with no output schema, the description covers the return/error protocol (same requests re-returned), the lifecycle (24h expiry, deletion on completion), the multi-round norm, and fallback discovery via lore_workflow_status. Nothing an agent needs to call or recover from this tool correctly appears missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds meaning not in the schema, such as 'requests are mutually independent, so answer all at once', 'previously sent answers are stored, send only new questions', and 'jsonMode requests answer with pure JSON without code fences'. It adds above baseline but overlaps partially with the answers schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: resumes a task halted with status=needs_model, from the halt point. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming lore_write and lore_workflow_status and explaining the resume relationship. An agent can tell this apart from the many lore_* decision/plan tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger condition (status=needs_model), clear when-to-use in multi-round flow ('여러 번 이어지는 것이 정상이다'), and gives an alternative for a related need (to change arguments, re-invoke the original tool). It also routes to lore_workflow_status to recover a lost runId. When/when-not and alternatives are all present.

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