resume_dispatcher

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight by disclosing the ADMIN permission requirement and the global (not per-agent) scope. It stops short of describing side effects such as whether paused tasks immediately resume or whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the two qualifiers that matter (global scope, ADMIN) are appended compactly.

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 zero-parameter state-change action with an annotation covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the two missing essentials: privilege level and scope. Only the immediate effect on in-flight paused work is unstated.

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 schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related the description could add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resume the dispatcher') plus an explicit scope ('globally'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not name pause_dispatcher, but the inverse pairing is obvious from the sibling names and the tool name itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the existence of pause_dispatcher, but the description never states when to resume versus when not to, nor any precondition (e.g., dispatcher must currently be paused). Adequate but leaves inference to the agent.

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