continuum_resume

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safety, and the description reinforces 'Read-only.' It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the mode/next_allowed_action gate and the defaulting behavior when run_id is omitted.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, the required timing, how to interpret results, and the default run_id behavior with no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully documented, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, two optional parameters remain unexplained despite 0% schema description coverage, leaving some invocation ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the key run_id omission behavior, but does not explain what env or expected_model mean or when to supply them.

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 purpose: asking whether it is safe to continue a run after interruption and what to do first. It clearly distinguishes the gating/resume-check role from recording or checkpoint siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 clear timing guidance: 'Call this BEFORE resuming work.' It also explains how to interpret the result: mode 'resume' means proceed, anything else means stop and perform 'next_allowed_action'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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