continue_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It lists the four decisions but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether retry re-executes from scratch, whether abort is irreversible). The schema enum descriptions add some detail but not comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and use case. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and 3 well-documented parameters, the description covers the main functionality. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the outcome of each decision after use.

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 minimal extra information beyond the schema. The phrase '用自定义指令覆盖' aligns with the manual decision but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: make decisions on paused workflows (retry, skip, abort, manual override). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like execute_workflow (start new) or approve_tool (approvals).

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?

Description indicates usage when workflow is paused/blocked. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes it clear. A minor gap for explicit exclusions.

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