task_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explains true-resume behavior, fresh-run fallback for non-supporting agents, task_id reuse, workflow/dependency retention, override semantics, and non-resumable terminal state. It omits status transitions and error conditions, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 dense but each clause contributes: eligibility, reuse inputs, engine behavior, identity retention, overrides, and exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the single-paragraph structure could be improved with separation of behavior from parameters.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description covers the main resume semantics but not enough to be fully complete: it omits behavior for plan_mode/max_retries/timeout_sec, potential errors, and what happens when resuming a task that is still active or already claimed. It is adequate for the primary use case but has clear gaps.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates for task_id, prompt, session_id, workdir, model, and agent by explaining reuse and override behavior. However, plan_mode, max_retries, and timeout_sec remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a clear gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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The description opens with a specific action and target: resume an interrupted/failed/superseded task, reusing the original prompt, session, workdir, and agent. This clearly separates it from siblings like task_create or task_interrupt, and it also states the terminal-state exception (completed cannot be resumed).

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (interrupted/failed/superseded), a when-not condition (completed), and engine-specific guidance (claude/codex/qwen preserve context; DSH/opencode restart fresh). It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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