follow_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains how different backends behave (cursor resumes the same agent; external backends continue with stored history), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention return behavior, blocking semantics, or failure cases.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add backend-specific detail. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The description covers the central continuation behavior and backend differences, but leaves gaps: no output schema, no explanation of 'wait', and no indication of what response the agent should expect. For a three-parameter tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 33%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'message' or 'wait' parameters. run_id is minimally documented in the schema, but the description adds nothing about the meaning or expected format of the parameters.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('existing specialist run'). It is distinct from dispatch/run_workflow, which start new runs, though 'specialist run' is not precisely defined.

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 the tool is for continuing an already-started run rather than starting one, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_run, chat_send, or dispatch. It provides backend-specific context but no direct usage guidance or exclusions.

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