glm_5_continue_task

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

Without annotations, the description adds value by stating the tool only proposes and does not execute host tools. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving gaps.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff but could include more informative details without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the format of proposals, leaving the tool underspecified for effective use.

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% and the description fails to map its concepts ('objective', 'compact prior summary') to specific parameters like sessionId or instruction. It provides no parameter-level details, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

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 it continues a 'persisted agentic task' using its objective and summary, which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'resume_job' by noting it proposes and does not execute host tools, though sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 implies usage when a persisted task exists and needs continuation, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives like 'resume_job' or 'route_agentic_task'. The 'proposes only' hint is useful but not comprehensive.

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