send_followup

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'bounded follow-up,' which is redundant with the message maxLength in the schema. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like side effects, return format, or error cases. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added value.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and it conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits explicit usage guidance (when to call vs. siblings) and parameter semantics. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer critical context from names and annotations.

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 compensate for explaining the parameters. It does not explain job_id at all and only hints at message size via 'bounded,' which is already in the schema. The agent gets no additional meaning about what these parameters represent or how they should be used.

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 states a clear verb ('continue'), a resource ('a completed delegation'), and a qualifier ('bounded follow-up'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delegate_task (initial delegation) and get_task_result (retrieval) by focusing on a follow-up action. No ambiguity or tautology.

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?

It clearly indicates this is for a completed delegation, implying it should be used after delegate_task has finished, not for initiating new tasks or retrieving results. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the timing and purpose clear.

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