continue_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool resumes a task using its persisted conversation, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond just 'resume'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as state changes or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and mechanism but leaves gaps around the 'prompt' parameter and any caveats about resuming. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke it in all scenarios.

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 0%, so the description is expected to compensate. It does not mention the 'prompt' parameter at all, and while 'task_id' is implied by the word 'task', the description adds no semantic detail about either parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Resume' and identifies the resource as 'a paused or failed task', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task, cancel_task, and delegate_task. The mechanism 'using its persisted conversation' further clarifies its unique role.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: when a task is paused or failed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the condition 'paused or failed' is a strong usage indicator, and the sibling tools are contextually distinct.

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