continue_matter

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false annotations, it discloses real behavior: lookup is by name/alias, it spans directories and AI contexts, it returns candidate options on ambiguity, and it does not demand a path from the user. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 compact sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and the resolution behavior second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, lookup key, scope, and ambiguity handling adequately. It stops short of describing what a successful match returns (matter body vs. reference), which would round it out.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'query' param has no description, so the description must compensate. It does partially by saying the key is a name or alias, but it leaves matching semantics (exact vs. fuzzy vs. natural-language phrase) unstated.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads a 'matter' by name/alias, scoped as cross-directory and cross-AI-context. This clearly distinguishes it from list_matters (enumerate all) and create_matter, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'when the user says continue/advance a matter, call this first.' That is a clear activation condition an agent can act on. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or 'use X instead' routing against siblings like list_matters or search_context.

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