Resumes a suspended Backpack Battles run from the title screen, equivalent to clicking Continue.
从标题界面继续挂起的 run（等价于点击“继续”）。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "bpb_continue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It implies a state dependency (a suspended run must exist) but does not say what happens on failure, which phase the run resumes into, or what state is mutated. The 'equivalent to clicking Continue' analogy helps only if the agent knows the UI semantics.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the action and its precondition come first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere unfilled.
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 zero-param state-transition action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what triggers it and what it resumes. It omits what the agent gets back and what conditions cause failure, which an agent needs to call it safely.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter-level gaps exist.
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 verb+resource pair — resume ('continue') a suspended run — and adds the precondition context ('from the title screen'). This implicitly separates it from the sibling bpb_start_run (which starts fresh), though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 phrase 'from the title screen' and 'suspended run' implies the usage context, but the description never states when to choose this over bpb_start_run or what happens if no suspended run exists. Usage must be inferred from the precondition wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.