resume_transport

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: re-submits signature, auto-approves $CPU, does not create new transport or re-escrow, checks deadlines and replay guard, reports if already paid or expired. Provides a complete behavioral profile without contradictions.

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 sentences: first states the purpose, second adds safety and retry guidance. No filler, every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, safety, and differentiation. It hints at reporting outcomes but doesn't detail the return value. Minor gap, but adequate.

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 100% and the schema description for jobId is identical to the description's mention. No additional meaning, formatting, constraints, or examples are provided beyond the schema. 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 uses specific verbs and clearly identifies the resource: 'Finish paying a pending paid transport... by its jobId... re-submits the already-issued signature on-chain... without creating a new transport or re-escrowing.' This distinguishes it from related tools like 'transport' and 'get_pending_transports'.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: only for pending paid transports from 'get_pending_transports'. States it's safe to retry due to checks on signature deadline and on-chain replay guard. Implies not to use for creating new transports.

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