netease_resume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value by disclosing the non-obvious side effect that it may re-fetch an expired audio URL from the network, which explains the openWorldHint. It does not cover what happens if no current song exists or whether the requestId must match a prior session.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded ahead of the conditional refresh clause. Nothing is wasted, but there is also very little substance for a tool with an unexplained required parameter.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations present, the description covers the core behavior and the URL-refresh nuance. The remaining gap is the required requestId, which is left entirely opaque in both schema and prose.

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 description coverage is 0%: the single required parameter, requestId, has no description in the schema and the description says nothing about it. For the only input to the tool, the agent gets no idea what the value represents, its origin, or whether it is reusable.

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 names a specific action ('继续当前歌曲' – resume the current song) with a clear resource, and the refresh clause clarifies scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like netease_play (start new playback) and netease_pause, though it never names an alternative.

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?

'继续当前歌曲' implies this is used after a pause or interruption rather than to start playback, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus netease_play / netease_launch, and no stated preconditions (e.g., must there already be a current track?).

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