resume_plan

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the timing (next advance_pipeline tick) and the effect (stories eligible for dispatch/review/merge), but does not discuss reversibility, side effects, or whether there are any prerequisites beyond having a paused plan. This is a basic resume operation, and the description adds some context beyond just 'resume'.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the primary action (clear a pause) and the consequence (stories become eligible). No filler words; every part carries meaning.

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 simple with one parameter and no output schema expectations explained, but an output schema exists (possibly indicating a return value). The description could mention what the response looks like, but given the tool's simplicity and the known pipeline context, it is largely complete for an agent to use 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?

With only one parameter, plan_name, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no further compensation is needed.

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's purpose: clearing a pause set by pause_plan, and its effect: making stories eligible for dispatch/review/merge on the next advance_pipeline tick. It references the specific sibling (pause_plan) and the pipeline mechanic, distinguishing it from other tools.

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 explains the intended use case: resuming a plan that was paused. It implicitly indicates it should be used after pause_plan, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, given the clear pair with pause_plan, the guidance is sufficient.

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