continue_task

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world); the description goes further and discloses that message is routed to the original session in one case, is merely an acknowledgment in others, and is not sent at all under codex user_confirmation. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits side effects like state transitions after resume.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then colon-delimited branches keyed to source (zcode/codex) and state. Dense but essentially waste-free; only the framework-specific jargon adds reading cost.

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?

No output schema and no parameter documentation exist, so the description bears the burden and largely meets it by enumerating the branch behaviors an agent must anticipate. It still leaves return values and failure handling unstated, which for a mutation tool is a modest gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for `message`: it is sent to the original session, downgraded to an ack, or not transmitted depending on source/state. `taskId` is never explicitly defined, but it is trivially inferable as the needs_user task identifier.

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+resource plus the gating state: '恢复处于 needs_user 的任务' (resume a task in needs_user state). That condition implicitly separates it from run_task/rework_task/verify_task, but no sibling is named outright, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'needs_user' precondition is an implicit when-to-use rule, and the zcode/codex branches explain what happens per source state (agent_question, user_confirmation, login_required). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use continue_task (e.g. for a task in another state, use run_task/rework_task instead).

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