tc_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 explicitly states '只读' (read-only), clearly indicating the tool has no mutating side effects. It also enumerates what is returned. It does not cover edge cases such as a missing active task, but for a read-only status query this is largely sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It leads with the read-only safety property and then lists the returned items compactly. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema alongside fully described parameters, so the description does not need to explain the return format. However, it omits when to use this tool and uses domain-specific terms like '未落档路径' without clarification, leaving some ambiguity for correct selection and invocation.

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 both root and task_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only describes the overall operation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 concrete action: read-only return of four specific state items (target, current step, un-archived path, next step). This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement, not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as tc_show, which may also return state.

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 no guidance on when to use tc_resume versus alternatives like tc_show or tc_capture, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. Correct usage must be inferred from the tool name and the listed fields, which is not explicit.

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