resume_host_run

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

Annotations are all false, so they provide no safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that it resumes and replays interrupted work, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or how run state changes beyond that, leaving gaps.

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 short, front-loaded with 'Resume,' and contains no filler. The two clauses are slightly redundant, but overall it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the required expected_revision parameter is left unexplained, and 'portable stage' is not clarified. The description does not provide enough context about how this resume operation relates to siblings like start_host_run or commit_host_stage.

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 does not mention run_id or expected_revision at all. The purpose of expected_revision is entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resume' with a clear resource ('first incomplete portable stage') and adds 'replay interrupted work,' making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like start_host_run and pause_host_run.

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 clearly implies when to use it—after an interruption, to resume unfinished work—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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