avl.resume

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it says the operation occurs only after hash verification and that recomputation is limited to failed, missing, or damaged cases. It does not contradict the annotations. Minor ambiguity remains about whether the tool performs the verification or the caller must do it beforehand.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by conditions and constraints. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core context: when resume applies, what gets recomputed, and what is disallowed. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but those are secondary given the simple interface and absence of an output schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, job_id, the description needed to compensate by explaining how to identify the job or where the id comes from. It only refers to 'an inactive job' without addressing id format, provenance, or required relationship to prior submissions, so the parameter remains underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resume an inactive job'. It further narrows scope by stating 'Active jobs cannot be resumed' and specifies the action 'Recompute only failed, missing or damaged cases', making it readily distinguishable from siblings like run, submit, status, and cancel.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for inactive jobs, and only after verifying hashes. It also gives an explicit exclusion: active jobs cannot be resumed. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explain what to use for active jobs, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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