continue_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions session continuation but does not disclose whether the tool may execute code with --always-approve (implied by the 'mutate' parameter in the schema), possible destructive effects, or what happens if no session is found. The description omits safety-critical information.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes an example. Every word earns its place—there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description clearly explains the tool's main purpose and session selection logic, which is the core context needed. However, it fails to mention return values (e.g., job_id when background is true), side effects, or failure modes, which are important given the tool's 8-parameter complexity and lack of an output schema.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example for the prompt ('fix failing tests') and clarifying the priority of session_id over the most recent session in cwd. This extra semantic guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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's purpose: to continue a previous Grok execution session with a follow-up prompt. The example 'fix failing tests' adds context, and the use of 'continue' distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_task or run_task.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: when continuing a prior session. It explicitly recommends preferring session_id from a prior execute_task and explains the fallback to the most recent session. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like execute_task for new tasks, though the context implies it.

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