Resumes an interrupted BetterGI config-group run from its last checkpoint, like --TaskProgress. Use it to continue collection or long tasks after interruption; BetterGI must be closed.
从上次中断处续跑配置组（等价 BetterGI.exe --TaskProgress <组名|latest>）——采集/长任务被打断后用。要求 BetterGI 未在运行。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 配置组名，或 latest（默认，表示最近一次） | |
| force | No | 无视前置阻断强行续跑（默认 false） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the prerequisite that BetterGI must not be running and that this resumes from the last interruption, but it does not describe side effects, what happens if the prerequisite is violated, or what the force behavior means beyond the schema.
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 compact statement with the core action and prerequisite front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information and there is no filler.
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 simple two-parameter action tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it: purpose, interruption use case, and the key prerequisite. The main remaining gap is that it does not discuss return behavior or side effects, but that is less critical here.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that the group name may be a specific group or latest, but adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource: resume a configuration group from the last interruption. It also gives the exact CLI equivalent and clarifies the interrupted long-task context, which distinguishes it from normal run or collect siblings even without naming them.
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 says to use this after a collection or long task has been interrupted, and it gives the prerequisite that BetterGI must not already be running. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for starting a fresh run, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.