openvsp.batch_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: only non-successful cases are retried, successful cases are verified/reused, and no successful cases are replayed. It does not discuss side effects or idempotency, but the core retry semantics are explicit.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The verification checklist is compact, and the explicit no-replay constraint 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?

Given that an output schema exists and there is only one required request object, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what gets retried and the verification preconditions; the main missing piece is guidance on when to use batch_resume instead of sibling batch tools.

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?

The prose never mentions batch_directory or case_ids, and schema description coverage is 0% according to the context signals, so the description must compensate. Although the nested schema note about empty case_ids is useful, the tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail for invoking the tool correctly.

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 action and resource: 'Explicitly retry non-successful cases.' It further distinguishes itself by stating 'Never replays successful cases,' which separates it from a general batch run/status tool and from siblings like batch_submit or batch_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?

It gives a clear precondition: retry only after verifying the model, package, native binaries, specification, and successful artifacts. It also sets an exclusion (never replay successes), but it does not name alternative sibling tools or describe situations that would favor batch_submit/preflight instead.

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