workspace_pause_reference_expansion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it pauses scheduling and that resuming requires an advance, but it doesn't mention side effects, idempotency, what happens to the current step, or any permissions. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core instruction is front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to read, though it sacrifices information density for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single required parameter, the description leaves gaps: what is 'the active step', what does 'scheduling' refer to, and what is the tool's overall effect in the reference expansion workflow? An agent would need additional context to know if this is the correct action and what the consequences are.

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 schema has one required parameter, run_id, with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what run_id refers to (e.g., the run being paused), leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. The description adds no semantic value beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('scheduling after the active step'), making the core action clear. It doesn't explicitly mention 'reference expansion' in the text, but the tool name and sibling context imply it. It doesn't distinguish from siblings directly, but the purpose is discernible.

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 implies that resumption requires an explicit advance ('Advance explicitly to resume'), which hints at the alternative sibling workspace_advance_reference_expansion, but it doesn't name it or provide conditions for when to use this tool over other pause-like tools. The guidance is minimal and implicit.

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