continue_opencode

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that session context is preserved and implies execution of follow-up instructions, but it does not mention potential filesystem mutations, authentication requires, or behavior when the session is no longer active.

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 well-organized with a purpose sentence, a usage sentence, and a parameter list. It is slightly longer than necessary but every section adds value, especially given the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 presence of an output schema covers return-value documentation. The description covers purpose, usage, and all parameters. The only substantive gap is the lack of disclosure about side effects or preconditions beyond 'active session,' but overall the description is adequate for a continuation tool.

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 0%, but the Args section fully compensates. Each parameter gets a meaningful explanation, including the allowed values for 'ide' ('vs_code', 'antigravity', 'cli_direct'), which the schema does not provide as an enum.

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 action: 'Continue an active OpenCodeengineering session while preserving session context,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also lists concrete use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools that start or status-check sessions, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'send follow-up instructions, fix build/test failures, or proceed to the next engineering task in the development loop.' It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the active-session framing provides sufficient context.

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