continue_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool never asks the user, never marks the campaign complete, and does not clear the continuation obligation by itself. This provides key behavioral traits for safe invocation. It does not mention any destructive actions, which is appropriate given it is a recording tool.

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, efficiently conveying purpose and key behavioral constraints without extraneous words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second sentence clarifies limitations. Every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers usage context and behavioral traits. It explains when to use and what the tool does not do, which is sufficient for a recording tool. It could optionally mention the return value, but that is not critical.

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 50%, with 'lane' and 'firstAction' having descriptions. The description adds context by explaining 'next runnable improvement lane' and 'first concrete action,' aligning with parameter meaning. However, 'runId' (required) and 'rationale' (optional) are not elaborated in the description, leaving a gap for those 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 records the next runnable improvement lane and first concrete action after specific events. It uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('run', 'lane', 'action'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it never asks the user or marks the campaign complete, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 lists when to use the tool (after reports, dashboards, saturation findings, etc.) and states it does not mark the campaign complete nor clear the continuation obligation, implying it is an intermediate step. It advises that a 'real progress tool must run next,' providing clear guidance on context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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