resume_contract

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 says only that a contract is 'prepared' and gives no information about side effects, persistence, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. This is a significant gap for a tool whose name suggests it may alter a workflow state.

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 filler words, so it is concise. However, it is so sparse that it omits information essential for correct invocation, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It gives a hint about the source data ('last checkpoint', 'current capacity') but says nothing about return values, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving an agent unable to confidently call it.

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 the description does not map 'workspaceRoot' or 'jobId' to the mentioned 'last checkpoint' or 'current capacity'. The description adds only a vague contextual hint and fails to explain what each parameter actually means or how to populate it.

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 uses the verb 'Prepare' with a resource ('resume contract') and names two inputs ('last checkpoint', 'current capacity'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'resume contract' is never defined, and no distinction is drawn between this tool and its siblings, leaving its exact purpose somewhat vague.

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 implies a use case ('from the last checkpoint and current capacity') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like window_plan or checkpoint_save. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate rather than being told.

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