yaaif_plan_execution_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior: it refreshes readiness/version, halts on unresolved sync conflicts or failed verification evidence, and avoids repeating mutations. It still omits details about permissions, error behavior, or what happens after halting, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 two short, dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful safety behavior. Every word 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level view: it refreshes state, returns the next pending step, and halts under unsafe conditions. It lacks parameter explanation and concrete success/error semantics, but it is minimally viable for an agent to get oriented.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'slug' parameter. It does not explain what slug refers to, how to obtain it, or what format is expected. The single parameter name is somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no semantic value to the schema.

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 operation: refresh Scenario readiness/version and return the next pending step. This goes beyond a tautology and gives an agent a distinct understanding of the tool's role, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling plan-execution tools like yaaif_plan_execution_update_step.

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 phrasing 'before returning the next pending step' implies this tool is used when resuming or advancing a plan execution, and the halt condition provides some when-not-to-continue guidance. However, it never names alternatives or explains the exact circumstances that should lead an agent to choose this tool over plan_execution_get or plan_execution_update_step.

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