continue_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: never asks user, never marks campaign complete, does not clear continuation obligation. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions.

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 sentences and informative, but somewhat verbose. It front-loads purpose well, but could be more concise without losing meaning.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description explains context, behavior, and constraints fairly well. It covers when to use and what to expect, but lacks details on return values or error conditions.

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 coverage is 50%, but the description adds minimal extra meaning for parameters. It explains that 'lane' is the next runnable lane and 'firstAction' is the concrete next tool/action, which mostly repeats the schema descriptions. It does not describe 'runId' or 'rationale', leaving them under-specified.

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 records the next improvement lane and first action, and specifies the contexts after which it is used (reports, dashboards, saturation findings, etc.). It differentiates from siblings by noting it never asks the user, never marks campaign complete, and does not clear continuation obligation.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool (after specific findings/advisories) and what it does not do (never asks user, never marks complete). It also implies that a real progress tool must run next, guiding the agent on follow-up actions.

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