Resume the queue

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only and is idempotent. The description adds that it clears the paused flag and, by default, the needsHuman flag, and then starts the worker, disclosing the side effects. It also explains the reason for the flags (checkpoint/login wall), providing useful context beyond annotations.

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 sentence that packs the action, condition, and parameter default. It is slightly long but still efficient. The key information is front-loaded, with the action stated first.

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 simple tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the trigger condition, and the default behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to call it. It does not describe error handling or worker behavior, but that is beyond the scope for this simple tool.

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 boolean parameter with no description. The description mentions 'by default' clearing the needsHuman flag, which implies the parameter controls that behavior. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explicitly state what happens when clearNeedsHuman is false. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 clearly states the tool clears the paused flag and, by default, the needsHuman flag, then starts the worker. It specifies the exact context (LinkedIn checkpoint/login wall) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like queue_start, which likely only starts the queue without clearing flags.

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?

It explicitly provides a trigger condition: 'call after you solved it in the Chrome window.' This gives clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like queue_start, so it lacks a full 'when-not-to-use' statement.

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