resume_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that completed stages replay from disk at zero cost, implying re-running is safe and idempotent, and ties max_usd to lifting the spend cap. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or the resulting run state, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two dense sentences with the primary trigger condition front-loaded, then the secondary condition, then a cost-reassurance clause. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational context: why to resume, which knob controls the spend cap, and that replay is free. It lacks detail on the `run` identifier semantics and post-resume state, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 67% with rich descriptions on max_usd and allow_secret_shaped, and the description adds only the conditional framing ('pass a higher max_usd' when stopped by the spend cap). The required `run` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for that gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (resume) and resource (run) and immediately scopes it to two concrete trigger conditions: an answered external stage or a spend-cap stop. It also names the sibling submit_stage as the path that handles the external-stage case automatically, so an agent can distinguish it from other run tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (post-external-stage, spend-cap stop) and a partial alternative steer via 'submit_stage does this for you'. It stops short of stating when resume_run should NOT be used (e.g., for active runs) or listing an alternative for the spend-cap case.

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