work_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two behaviors, recovery and optional proof sealing, but does not explain side effects, whether state is mutated, what 'seal' entails, or any reversibility or permission concerns. This leaves the agent with only a vague sense of the tool's effects.

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 and front-loaded, which is good, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. The phrase 'optionally seal a no-handoff proof' is compressed to the point of obscurity, so conciseness comes at the cost of necessary clarity.

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 tool with moderate complexity, multiple related siblings, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, this description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and any explanation of the proof-sealing mechanism. The existence of an output schema helps with return values, but not with invocation decisions.

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 adds no meaning for any of the four parameters (project, to_agent, max_evidence, workstream_id). The parameter names and defaults provide some hint, but the description itself does not explain their purpose, relationships, or expected formats, so it fails to compensate for the missing 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 states a specific action ('Recover unfinished work') and a secondary optional behavior ('seal a no-handoff proof'), so it is not a tautology and identifies a clear resource. However, 'no-handoff proof' is jargon and the description does not explicitly distinguish work_resume from sibling tools like work_handoff, resume_state, or work_state.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Recover unfinished work' implies a recovery context, but there are no exclusions, no mention of when to prefer work_handoff or resume_state, and no conditions for when the optional proof sealing should be used.

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