continue_kscc_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the internal resume/continue flag mechanics, but does not disclose side effects, budget/agent behavior, session persistence, or whether the original session is mutated (only indirectly hinted by the fork parameter in the schema). This is a significant gap for an agentic continuation tool.

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 filler, front-loading the purpose and then giving a compact routing rule. Every segment earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and the existence of a sibling tool, this one-line description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error behavior, side effects, cost implications, and any comparison with run_kscc_prompt, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 24%, and the description only addresses sessionId and cwd—both already described in the schema. The other 15 parameters (model, effort, permissionMode, allowedTools, disallowedTools, maxBudgetUsd, etc.) receive no explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action (续接/continue) and resource (kscc 会话) with a clear goal (多轮迭代/multi-round iteration). The routing clause also distinguishes this from the sibling run_kscc_prompt by making clear it resumes an existing session rather than starting a new one, even without naming the sibling.

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 gives parameter-selection guidance: with sessionId use --resume, otherwise use cwd with --continue. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus run_kscc_prompt, such as 'use run_kscc_prompt for new sessions.' The usage context is implied by the word 续接 but not clearly stated.

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