native_session_continue

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

Annotations already mark this as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral invariants: the capability profile and filesystem root stay unchanged, ChatGPT remains the sole main model, worktree behavior depends on session type, and a DeepSeek subagent cannot take over the main loop. These details go beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavior details about session types and the DeepSeek subagent. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the session-type sentences could be seen as elaborating what the first sentence already implies.

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 100% schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description supplies enough behavioral context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance against sibling continuation-related tools.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds high-level session context but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already present in the input schema.

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?

Clearly states the action: continue the same durable native session while preserving its capability profile, filesystem root, and main model. This distinguishes it from starting a new session, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like native_session_recover or native_session_reply_and_wait.

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 this tool is for resuming an existing durable session rather than starting a new one, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer this over native_session_recover or native_session_reply_and_wait. The guidance is contextual but not directive.

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