continue_attack

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool modifies state, requires an active engagement, or has side effects like altering the conversation history. The word 'continue' implies mutation but no details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters, though it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'continue' entails, how parameters relate to the conversation, or what the output contains (even though an output schema exists, its content is unknown). The agent lacks sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 should explain parameters. It only mentions 'objective/turn' but does not define 'engagement_id', 'conversation_id', 'attack_name', 'scorer_names', or 'attack_params'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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: continuing a previous attack conversation with a new objective/turn. It uses a specific verb ('continue') and resource ('attack conversation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_attack' (which likely starts new) and 'cancel_attack'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'run_attack' or 'score_response'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints beyond the basic action.

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