resume_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that completed phases are skipped, that failed/timed-out phases need retry_failed, and that unsafe retries require confirm_unsafe unless the policy permits. It does not mention potential side effects, error cases, or what happens if no incomplete phases exist, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and goes beyond a generic 'resume' statement.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping. It efficiently packs behavioral rules without redundancy. The structure is logical: purpose, phase handling, then retry conditions. No wasted words.

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 complexity (multiple phases, retry logic, safety policies) and that an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description is fairly complete. It covers the key decision points an agent needs: skipping completed phases, requiring retry_failed for failures, and confirm_unsafe for unsafe retries. It does not mention edge cases like no incomplete phases or errors, but the core usage is well specified.

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. It explains the retry_failed and confirm_unsafe parameters by stating when they must be set (retry_failed for failed/timed-out phases, confirm_unsafe for unsafe retries without the allow-unsafe policy). It does not explain execution_id, but that is self-evident as the identifier. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare parameter definitions.

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 verb ('Resume') and resource ('an execution'), and precisely defines the scope as 'from its first incomplete phase'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like start_execution by focusing on resuming rather than starting, and from get_execution by being an action rather than a read.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (to resume an execution) and specifies conditions for retries (failed/timed-out phases require retry_failed, unsafe retries require confirm_unsafe unless policy allows). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond implying that start_execution is for new executions. The usage context is strong but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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