cyd_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 reveals one precondition (the app must be cooperatively paused) but says nothing about error behavior when nothing is paused, whether the call is synchronous or blocking, or what side effects resuming entails. For a state-changing control operation on remote hardware, this is a meaningful 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?

At roughly ten words the description is suitably brief, but it reads as three disjointed fragments rather than a coherent statement. The fragment 'Control, any layer' does not earn its place — it is ambiguous rather than informative and could confuse an agent about the tool's scope.

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?

As a parameterless control operation, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent gets no expectation of return values or failure behavior. For a stateful remote-device operation, noting what happens when no app is paused or the app is already running would complete the picture.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the schema or description to document. The 'cooperatively paused' qualifier usefully conveys the invocation precondition, which is the closest equivalent to parameter semantics here. Nothing is missing.

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 ('Resume') and resource ('a cooperatively paused MicroPython app'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like cyd_pause and cyd_step. However, the leading fragments 'Machine-specific (cyd)' and 'Control, any layer' are cryptic and don't add obvious clarity. The core action is clear but the surrounding qualifiers muddy precision slightly.

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 qualifier 'cooperatively paused' implies a precondition — this tool should only be used when the app paused cooperatively, which is the state created by the cyd_pause sibling. But the description never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., cyd_launch, cyd_run) nor what to do if the app was forcibly halted. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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