resume_run

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions resuming without repeating completed work, implying idempotence or checkpointing, but does not disclose: required permissions, whether it can be called multiple times, what happens if the run is not resumable, or the return behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, followed by a precise usage condition. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose side effects, permission requirements, and failure modes. It only mentions the resumability precondition, which is helpful but insufficient given zero structured behavioral data.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't describe the run_id parameter at all beyond the schema's implicit type. Baseline 3 is given because the parameter is self-explanatory (run_id identifies the run), but the description adds no semantic detail.

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 action (resume a run) and adds a key constraint: without repeating completed work. This distinguishes it from a hypothetical 'restart' tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_run_status beyond usage note.

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?

Provides a clear precondition: use only after get_run_status or get_failure says the run is resumable. Names specific sibling tools. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use beyond the precondition, but that's effectively covered.

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