cst_resume_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and the prerequisite but omits any side effects, error conditions, whether the call is synchronous, or what the timeout parameter does. For a control tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 succinct and front-loaded, with two sentences that state the purpose and the prerequisite without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the timeout_s parameter, does not describe return values (since there is no output schema), and does not mention any error behavior or prerequisites beyond a paused simulation. An agent would be uncertain about how to invoke it correctly in edge cases.

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 does not mention the timeout_s parameter at all, and the schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema also provides no explanation. The parameter's purpose is entirely opaque, so the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Resume a previously paused CST simulation') and the resource, making it distinct from simulation control siblings like cst_run_simulation and cst_stop_simulation. It also names the prerequisite tool (cst_pause_simulation), so an agent can immediately identify its role.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage condition ('Use after cst_pause_simulation') and implies the context where the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the prerequisite is clear enough for an agent to infer that it is only for resuming, not for starting or stopping.

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