task.resume

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which partially covers the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns restored process metadata, but it fails to clarify whether the operation has side effects (e.g., actually resuming execution). The verb 'Resume' creates ambiguity against the readOnlyHint, though it is not an outright contradiction. No details about idempotency, state changes, or error behavior are provided.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant filler. Its brevity does cause missing guidance, but that is captured in other dimensions.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value; it mentions 'restored process metadata' but not its structure. For a one-parameter tool, this is mostly sufficient, but the behavioral ambiguity around whether the tool mutates task state or only reads it leaves an agent uncertain in the context of a lifecycle-oriented sibling set.

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?

The description names the only parameter, task_id, in the phrase 'by task_id', which overcomes the 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not explain the expected format, how to obtain a valid task_id, or any additional constraints beyond the schema's minLength. For a single string parameter, this is adequate but minimal.

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 names a specific verb ('Resume'), a resource ('durable Task'), and the expected result ('return restored process metadata'). This is enough to understand the core action and distinguish it from sibling tools like task.create, task.cancel, task.finish, and task.cleanup. However, it does not explicitly clarify whether 'resume' means actually restarting execution or simply retrieving resume metadata, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task.create or process.start, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must be paused). The single sentence provides no usage context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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