instrument_probe_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 states the action (resume) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether it affects successful tasks, or what happens to the batch state. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap; the agent cannot anticipate the outcome or safety profile.

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, succinct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and object. While minimal, it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices necessary context for brevity.

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?

The tool is a resume operation with a single parameter and no output schema. The description explains the basic action but does not cover crucial context: how to identify the batch, what happens to the tasks, whether it is safe to call multiple times, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the job_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides (a UUID). The description does not explain how job_id relates to the probe batch, how to obtain it, or any format or usage details. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('resume') and a specific resource ('failed/pending tasks in an existing probe batch'). It distinguishes itself from generic resume tools by naming 'probe batch', though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like batch_render_resume or catalog_inventory_resume. The purpose is clear and actionable, but not maximally differentiated.

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 a scenario (resuming after a probe batch has failed/pending tasks) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like instrument_probe or batch_render_resume. There is no mention of prerequisites, preconditions, or typical usage patterns. The agent is left 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.