resume_host_run

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds that it 'replays interrupted work' and 'resumes from the first incomplete portable stage,' which gives some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, what state changes occur, or whether it's safe to call multiple times.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it is under-specified rather than concise in a good way — it's brief but leaves critical information unstated.

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 tool is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) with both params undocumented. For a non-idempotent resume operation with no annotation support, the description should clarify side effects, failure modes, revision semantics, and interaction with pause/commit lifecycle. This is notably incomplete.

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, but it adds no parameter-level meaning. run_id is self-explanatory, but expected_revision carries no semantic explanation — what revision? why must it match? The description provides zero guidance on these two required parameters.

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?

Description states it resumes from the first incomplete portable stage and replays interrupted work — a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like start_host_run, commit_host_stage, or pause_host_run, and the meaning of 'portable stage' is vague without schema or additional context.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for interrupted runs, but says nothing about alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., must be a host run previously started/paused). Among 25+ sibling tools, there is no directional guidance for choosing this over similar lifecycle tools.

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