dsh_continue

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden and adds useful context: it clarifies that the tool performs a write, is scoped to the same root DSH session, and explains the behavior of queue and steer modes. It also notes that writes are never automatically retried, a non-obvious behavior.

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 three short sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with mode semantics and retry behavior. There is zero filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

No output schema and all false annotations require the description to cover behavior. It does cover core intent and mode semantics, but neglects parameter details, error conditions, and return values. As a compatibility alias, it is somewhat adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. Only 'mode' gets semantics via queue/steer explanation; the other four parameters (prompt, taskId, sinceCursor, expectedRevision) are not addressed beyond vague 'same root' wording, leaving the agent under-informed about their meaning.

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 it is a compatibility alias for dsh_followup and continues the same root DSH session. It distinguishes between queue and steer modes with specific targets, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage as a drop-in replacement for dsh_followup but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It provides guidance on when to use queue vs steer, but lacks exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over other sibling tools.

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