desktop_continue_cc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'continue' without explaining what that entails (e.g., does it resume a paused session? does it require a running session? what are the side effects?). Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, conciseness is only valuable when it still conveys necessary information; here the brevity leads to omission of crucial details, so it is not a strength in this case.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, numerous sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not define what 'continue' means, how the parameters affect behavior, or how this tool fits into the workflow alongside siblings like cc_start_session, cc_stop_session, or cc_focus_session.

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?

The description does not explain any of the three parameters (confirm, session_id, allow_frontmost). While their names and defaults provide some hint, with 0% schema description coverage the description should compensate by clarifying their roles and effects, which it fails to do.

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 specifies 'let Claude Code/Codex continue', identifying the verb (continue) and resource (Claude Code/Codex session). However, it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like cc_send_instruction or cc_start_session, and 'continue' is ambiguous—it could mean resume, proceed with a pending task, or something else.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools (e.g., cc_send_instruction, desktop_focus_cc, cc_start_session). The phrase 'voice-friendly entry' hints at a voice use case but offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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