Continue an eligible Luna task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses immutability of the original contract, no widening fields, no delegation, no automatic repair, re-running of verification/scope/evidence checks, resultDetail mode semantics, silence while pending, and the allowed report outcomes. This is exceptional transparency.

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 dense but every clause earns its place, covering action, constraints, mutation semantics, verification behavior, output modes, and communication protocol. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest provides necessary behavioral guardrails without fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the subtle semantics of continuation, the description is remarkably complete. It explains eligibility constraints, single-use token behavior, immutability, what will not happen, what checks rerun, mode defaults, and when to stay silent versus report. There is little an agent would need to infer on its own.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for the key parameters: 'opaque single-use continuationReference', 'one bounded instruction', and 'handoff is default; compact/full are compatibility modes' for resultDetail. It does not provide exhaustive per-parameter descriptions, but what it adds is meaningful and sufficient for invocation.

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 names a specific verb ('Continue'), a specific resource ('ONE eligible task'), and critical constraints ('once in the same Luna Codex thread', 'opaque single-use continuationReference'). It is clearly distinguished from siblings by explicitly noting 'Luna cannot delegate', so an agent can tell it apart from delegate_task/delegate_tasks.

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 clearly states the context for use: continuing an existing task in the same thread with a continuation reference. It provides exclusions such as 'Luna cannot delegate' and 'continuation never starts automatic repair', which helps differentiate from delegation and repair workflows. It does not name the exact alternative tool names, but the usage context is strong.

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