martin_continue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description need not repeat these. The description adds valuable context by stating the result is a 'durable continue or resume request,' clarifying the tool's effect beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and context. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no extraneous information.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters with oneOf, destructive behavior, many siblings), the description is too brief. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and any mention of output context. Although an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or hint at return values, leaving agents underinformed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter documentation. The description fails to explain any of the 6 parameters, including the critical oneOf choice among file, loopId, and latest, as well as reason, runsDir, and requestedBy. This omission leaves agents without guidance on how to populate these fields.

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's action: 'Record a durable continue or resume request for a Martin run after a human pause or approval checkpoint.' It specifies the resource (Martin run) and the context (after pause/checkpoint), distinguishing it from siblings like martin_pause and martin_cancel.

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 implies usage after a pause or approval checkpoint but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like martin_run or martin_inspect. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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