continue_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks, may submit, and may start a new watch, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., old watch status), prerequisites, error handling, or authorization needs. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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 that is efficient and front-loaded, but it is somewhat dense with multiple clauses. Could be more concise by splitting into simpler sentences, but overall no wasted words.

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?

The description explains the tool's role in an automation loop, which is helpful. However, it does not mention the return value, error states, or what happens if the session is not completed. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, more detail would be beneficial for full understanding.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the parameters are used in the automation loop (e.g., 'watch_id' for current watch, 'next_instruction' triggers automatic submission), but does not substantially extend beyond what is already in 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 clearly states the tool checks background monitoring results and automatically submits the next instruction and starts a new watch if the session is completed. It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'watch_session' or 'get_watch_result', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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?

Usage is implied: after a task session is completed, to continue automation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist. The description relies on context to infer appropriateness.

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