resume_bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool resumes command execution after a pause/abort, which is a behavioral state change. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether queued commands resume automatically) or any potential state changes beyond enabling commands. A clearer note on what exactly resumes would be more helpful.

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 extremely brief yet information-dense: two sentences, each earning its place. The first defines the action and context, the second specifies the prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, state-transition tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the trigger condition and the effect. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what the user should expect after the call (e.g., a confirmation or how to verify that commands are enabled again), but given the simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly shows an empty object with 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since there are none, and it implicitly confirms that. This is a clear case where the baseline 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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 states a clear verb ('allow') and a specific resource ('PixInsight commands'), and clarifies it is a resume operation after a pause/abort. It distinguishes itself from the broader set of process-control tools, though it doesn't name a specific sibling alternative.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call ONLY when the user explicitly tells you to continue,' which clearly sets the condition. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it beyond caveating the condition, but that is sufficient.

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