nexo_continuity_resume_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action (build bundle) but fails to mention side effects (e.g., state changes, idempotency, or failure modes). The agent receives no indication of what happens to existing bundles or what preconditions are required.

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 sentence with no waste, but its phrasing ('Desktop injects') is slightly awkward and the meaning could be clearer. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and complex context (continuity bundles), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the bundle contains, what it returns, or how to use the parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. The five parameters (conversation_id, session_id, etc.) remain entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot determine their purpose or correct values.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and names the resource ('small continuity bundle'), and provides context ('after restore or stale resume loss'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling continuity tools like nexo_continuity_audit or snapshot tools, limiting differentiation.

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 usage scenario (after restore or stale resume loss) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or contrasts with other continuity tools.

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