Follow up with Claude

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: it preserves the original directory and permission mode and serializes concurrent follow-ups across bridge processes. It does not elaborate on specific side effects, but the annotations carry that safety profile.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with useful information. The core continuation behavior and concurrency constraint are communicated without waste.

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 an open-world, destructive, five-parameter session-continuation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main continuation behavior and concurrency semantics. However, it omits return semantics and does not explain model, effort, or timeout behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 40% across five parameters. The description indirectly indicates that session_id should come from claude_ask and explains session preservation, but it adds no meaning for model, effort, timeout_sec, or the prompt parameter. At this coverage level the description should compensate more, and it does not.

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 verb and resource: 'Continue a session returned by claude_ask.' It explicitly ties the tool to its sibling and distinguishes follow-up behavior from starting a new ask. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 a clear usage condition: continue a session returned by claude_ask. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or discuss other alternatives beyond the implied claude_ask relationship, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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