vcluster_resume

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the effect ('restoring its operation and allowing workloads to run again') and returns a CommandResult or error, but it does not disclose prerequisites beyond 'previously paused', potential side effects if already running, or idempotency behavior. This is basic transparency but lacks deeper context.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose, avoids redundant phrasing, and every sentence provides necessary information without waste.

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 straightforward tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return type. It could be more complete by addressing edge cases (e.g., resuming an already-running vcluster), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter: name is required, namespace defaults to the vcluster name, and kubeconfig_path defaults to the environment kubeconfig. This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema's minimal property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resume') and clearly identifies the resource ('vcluster'), explicitly contrasting with the paused state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as vcluster_pause and vcluster_create, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 the tool should be used when a vcluster is paused, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., vcluster_delete if the vcluster should be removed instead), leaving a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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