resume_run

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

With no annotations, description covers key behaviors: starts new run, reuses results, returns immediately, runs as subprocess. Lacks details on auth, rate limits, or failure handling, but sufficient for core understanding.

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?

Well-structured: one-line summary, a paragraph explanation, then Args section. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 output schema existence and 2 parameters, description provides sufficient context: prerequisites, monitoring advice, and parameter examples. Covers essential aspects for effective tool use.

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 0%, and description adds meaning: flow_file is a path, origin_run_id is a run ID with example and suggestion to use get_run or get_latest_failure. Compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Resume a failed Metaflow run from the point of failure.' and explains it starts a new run reusing successful steps and re-executes from failure onward. Distinguishes from siblings like run_flow or get_latest_failure.

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?

Provides usage context: requires local filesystem, returns new run ID immediately, and recommends get_run for monitoring. Implicitly suggests use when a run fails, but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives beyond get_run and get_latest_failure.

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