Continue Codex Research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: 'original scratch isolation and source boundary remain in force' and the lifetime constraint. This provides context about state preservation but does not detail all edge cases (e.g., thread expiration behavior).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The second sentence adds important behavioral context without unnecessary wording. This is an excellent example of concise, information-dense description.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral boundaries. The output schema handles return values, annotations handle safety profile, and the description ties them together. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke this 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% with both 'prompt' and 'threadId' described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so no extra points earned. The description does not complement the schema with parameter examples or constraints.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Continue a research thread previously created during the current MCP server lifetime.' The verb 'continue' plus the specific resource 'research thread' provides a specific action and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'research' by focusing on continuation rather than creation.

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?

Clear guidance is provided: this tool is for threads created during the current MCP server lifetime, with an implicit 'when-not' via the lifetime restriction. The statement 'previously created' implies that the sibling 'research' should be used for new threads, though the alternative is not explicitly named. This is clear context but lacks an explicit exclusion sentence.

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