resume_chain

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 mentions that it resumes from 'the point of failure' and requires specific inputs, which adds useful context about its operation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data or is idempotent), error handling, or performance implications, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key requirements. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (resuming failed chains with three parameters, including nested objects) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and inputs but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational constraints, which are important for a mutation tool without structured safety hints.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by referencing 'resumeToken' and 'original chain definition', but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Resume a failed chain from the point of failure') and resource ('chain'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which handle different operations like checking status, listing capabilities, or managing billing. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Resume a failed chain from the point of failure') and provides prerequisites ('Use the resumeToken from the error response. Requires the original chain definition.'), giving clear context for its application. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for related scenarios, such as retrying without resuming or handling different failure types.

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