study_resume

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 mentions 'verify' and 'adopting existing child jobs,' which hints at side effects, but does not explain what verification entails, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements. For a resume operation that likely mutates state, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise, but the brevity sacrifices substance; the structure is clear, though the content is minimal.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description should explain the operational context, parameter meaning, and expected behavior. It does none of that. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 only parameter, study_id, is completely undocumented in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what study_id refers to or how to format it.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: 'verify and resume an interrupted coordinator' and adds 'adopting existing child jobs,' which distinguishes it from study_start (starting fresh) and job_resume (resuming a job rather than a study). It is not a tautology and provides enough specificity to identify the tool's function, though the terminology is slightly technical.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'interrupted coordinator' implies a use case, but the description never contrasts it with study_start, job_resume, or other siblings. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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