dsh_continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains queuing behavior, the preservation of context, the optional verification parameter with its consequence (completed_unverified), and the wait_seconds blocking behavior. This adequately covers the tool's operational nuances, though it does not mention potential error conditions or authorization requirements, which are not critical for a follow-up 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 efficient and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, follows with a brief contextual note about queuing and context preservation, and then presents a clean, labeled Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. The front-loaded purpose ensures agents quickly identify applicability.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, optional verification, wait semantics), the description is complete. It covers the intended use case, operational behavior, and parameter meanings. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It also implicitly addresses prerequisites by referencing dsh_delegate/dsh_list for obtaining agent IDs.

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?

Despite a schema description coverage of 0% (i.e., the schema provides no textual descriptions), the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each of the four parameters: agent_id (identifies the target agent), message (the follow-up instruction), verification (optional command to prove completion), and wait_seconds (blocking duration). This adds rich meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults, fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb-resource combination: 'Send follow-up work to an existing subagent, in its original session.' This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dsh_delegate (which presumably creates a new agent) and dsh_await (which waits on runs). The phrasing is precise and immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 usage context by explaining that work is queued if the agent is mid-run and that the agent retains full context, enabling direct references to prior work. It also directs users to obtain agent IDs from dsh_delegate or dsh_list, indicating alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as when a fresh context is needed, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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