Continue Muse Code session [experimental]

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: session-resolution fallback after server restart, error-rather-than-fresh-start semantics, per-run sandbox application, and auth caveats. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=false, though it defers auth details to muse_ask rather than restating them.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph is reasonably efficient, with each sentence mostly contributing session-resolution, fallback, or safety context. Minor redundancy appears in the repeated 'experimental' caveat and the cross-reference to muse_ask, but the structure remains readable.

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 complex session-continuation tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description supplies the critical non-schema context: how sessions are resumed, fallback behavior, and failure mode when no session exists. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no additional return-format explanation is needed.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including watch, prompt, sandbox, timeout_s, and workspace. The description reinforces that sandbox applies per turn but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('Muse session rooted at this workspace'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from muse_ask by explaining it resumes an existing session rather than starting fresh. An agent can tell what this does 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?

Explains the core usage context—resuming the exact session created by the last muse_ask—and notes the error when no prior session exists, which implicitly routes new-session needs to muse_ask. However, it stops short of an explicit 'use muse_ask when...' statement or broader when-not guidance.

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