continue_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses context resumption via thread_id, read-only sandbox limitations, and the return format. The detailed sandbox limitations are delegated to the sibling tool rather than spelled out, which is a minor gap.

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?

Well-structured with an opening statement, context, use cases, Args, and Returns sections. Content is organized and front-loaded; the slight redundancy between 'Continue' and 'Resumes' is minor and does not detract from effectiveness.

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 covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. It could mention error handling for invalid thread_id, but for a conversational continuation tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, but the description provides an Args section explaining each parameter clearly: thread_id from previous conversation, prompt with @filepath mention, and working_directory as optional. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Continue an existing Codex conversation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling start_new_conversation by emphasizing thread_id-based resumption and referencing the sibling's sandbox limitations.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section lists three concrete scenarios for using this tool. However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause and only indirectly references start_new_conversation as an alternative, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar.

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