herdr_controller_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 does reveal one significant behavior: rotating the lease id and fence token, and states that conversational history is unnecessary. However, it does not mention side effects such as invalidating prior tokens, prerequisites like having an existing lease, or error conditions. This partial disclosure earns a 3.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and condition. Each sentence adds distinct information: the trigger/precondition and the mechanism/benefit. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more explicit about parameters, though as a standalone it is well-structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter meanings, expected return values, failure modes, or any side effects. Even with the context that this is a resume operation, an agent cannot confidently call it without understanding what authority_ref and authority_sha256 are. The description leaves significant gaps.

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, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'same named Herdr agent identity' which likely relates to controller_id, but it never explicitly explains controller_id, authority_ref, authority_sha256, or ttl_seconds. There is no mapping between the description and the parameters, leaving the agent without needed semantic information.

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 action (resume coordination), the trigger condition (after clear or MCP restart), and a constraint (same named Herdr agent identity). It also mentions the core behavior of rotating lease id and fence token. However, the term 'coordination' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what exactly is being resumed, which prevents a 5.

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 gives context about when to use this tool (after clear or MCP restart) and a precondition (same agent identity). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like herdr_controller_acquire or herdr_controller_renew, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so a 3 is appropriate.

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