hex-continue-thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the target must be 'idle' but does not say what happens if the thread is not idle, whether this blocks or streams, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns. For a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and target front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely concise by design.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry the behavioral and parameter burden. It explains the basic action but omits error/edge behavior (non-idle threads), threadId meaning, and any return context, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only 50%: 'prompt' is described ('Follow-up prompt') but 'threadId' has no description at all. The tool description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the gap it should fill.

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 verb ('send a follow-up prompt') and resource ('agent thread'), making the action unambiguous. It implicitly narrows scope with 'idle' and 'follow-up', but never names the closest siblings (hex-create-thread, hex-get-thread-messages) to sharpen the distinction.

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 word 'idle' signals the prerequisite condition (the thread must be idle) and 'follow-up' implies an existing thread, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with hex-create-thread for starting a new thread versus continuing one.

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