ask_ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions ensuring messages go to the correct conversation, but it does not describe any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies state. For a continuation tool, this is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence in Chinese. It is concise with no redundancy, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and the instruction is immediately actionable.

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 simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It explains the necessary preconditions (new_session provides sessionUrl and platform) and the action. However, it does not describe the return value or behavior when the conversation continues (e.g., response format). The sibling tools help provide broader context.

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%, meaning input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds context about the purpose of sessionUrl and platform (from new_session), but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool continues communication in an existing consultation conversation. It references 'new_session' to establish context, distinguishing it from sibling tools 'new_session' (creates session) and 'check_connection' (probably tests connectivity). The verb 'continue' and resource 'conversation' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to pass the sessionUrl and platform from new_session, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies that the tool should only be used after new_session, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. The context is clear but could be more comprehensive with exclusion criteria.

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