mcp_qwen_continue_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the context that the tool sends a command to a subagent rather than performing the generation itself, which is useful, but it fails to mention side effects, whether the call is asynchronous, idempotency, failure modes, or what happens to the current session when invoked.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('sends a command') and then specifies the target, scope, and context. There is no filler or redundant detail; every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left unsure what the call actually returns, whether it blocks or completes asynchronously, and how it relates to mcp_qwen_extract_and_write_files for handling generated files. The description covers purpose but not enough of the operational context needed to invoke the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both task_id and instruction, and the instruction example is helpful. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('sends a command to continue generation') and clearly identifies the resource ('subagent Qwen' within the current task session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_task, check_status, verify_task, and config-related tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 verb 'continue' and phrase 'within the current task session' imply the tool should be used after a task has already been submitted and generation has paused. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison to alternatives like mcp_qwen_submit_task.

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