continue_task

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

The description discloses that it auto-selects a session and returns a prompt, which is useful. Since annotations are absent, the description must carry the transparency burden, but it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or prerequisites, leaving gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that start with the trigger and then the action. No wasted words; every sentence 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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too brief. It does not explain the auto-selection logic, parameter interactions, or what the 'ready continuation prompt' contains, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 only 57%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. It does not explain the three undocumented parameters (include_completed, prefer_current_directory, append_context_loaded_note) or clarify how user_request maps to the 'continue' scenario.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('when a user says continue/resume a feature') and what it does ('Auto-selects the best session and returns a ready continuation prompt'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session or start_session.

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 an explicit trigger for use ('when a user says continue/resume a feature'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the auto-selection behavior implicitly differentiates it from related siblings.

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