resume_training

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the name: auto-detecting configuration, blocking by default, editor vs. batch mode wait behavior, and the wait_timeout mechanism. It does not fully describe side effects like process spawning or environment prerequisites, but the provided coverage is solid for an agent to understand what will happen.

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 focused and mostly front-loaded, with the core purpose and config behavior stated before the parameter list. The parameter list is compact and directly useful. A minor redundancy exists in 'run_id: The run_id to resume,' which could be more descriptive, but overall there is no meaningful fluff.

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 and the lack of annotations, the description is reasonably complete: all parameters are explained, the default blocking behavior is disclosed, and editor/batch mode differences are covered. An output schema exists to describe return values, so that gap is acceptable. The description could have mentioned that force_training should be used for brand-new runs, but it is not a critical omission.

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 for the missing parameter documentation. It does this well: every one of the 8 parameters receives a functional explanation, including key nuances like config_path auto-detection, wait behavior differences, and time_scale meaning. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Resume a previously stopped/completed training run.' This identifies both the action and the resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling force_training by focusing on resuming an existing run rather than starting a new one.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a training run already exists and needs to be continued. It also references force_training as the behavioral baseline for blocking behavior, which gives the agent some cross-tool context. However, it does not explicitly say 'use force_training for new runs' or list exclusions, so the guidance is slightly implicit rather than fully explicit.

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