Continue an existing Clanker session with a new turn

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (destructive) and readOnlyHint=false (write operation). The description adds context about the return value ({id}), polling via clanker_wait, and specific error scenarios. This provides useful behavioral details beyond what annotations convey, though it does not detail side effects on session state.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second covers error conditions. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 has only 2 parameters with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the return value ({id}), the polling mechanism (clanker_wait), and error conditions, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters ('id' and 'prompt') adequately. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond the schema. According to the rubric, when coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Start a new prompt turn on an already-open session'. The phrasing 'persistent-session reuse' implies continuation of an existing session, which helps distinguish it from tools like clanker_dispatch or clanker_dispatch_start that likely initiate new sessions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 specifies the context for use ('on an already-open session') and mentions error conditions ('session reaped/closed or a turn already running'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool. It also references clanker_wait for polling. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the error conditions imply prerequisites.

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