continue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It does not state auth requirements, whether the session must be in a specific state to continue, what happens on failure, or how the response is delivered. Two words of scope ('mismo workdir') are the only behavioral hint.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise – there is essentially no front-loaded structure because there is so little content. Size is appropriate; information density is poor.

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 mutation-style tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, failure modes, or what a successful continuation returns.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter by name or meaning. 'message' is loosely implied by 'mensaje de seguimiento', but 'job_id' is completely undocumented and the description does not compensate for the total coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (reanuda/resume) and resource (sesión de un agente), and adds the 'mismo workdir' scope. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'run', 'handoff', or 'status', which an agent could plausibly confuse with resuming work. Purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternative. It only implies usage via the 'follow-up message' phrasing. With 17 siblings, an agent receives no routing help.

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