continue_agent_run

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('send follow-up instructions') but does not describe side effects, whether the call blocks, what happens if the worker is inactive, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal information beyond the action itself.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and includes no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations. It lacks explicit usage guidance, behavioral disclosure, and detailed parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema does not make up for these core missing elements, so it is not contextually complete.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds some meaning: 'existing Gemini worker' clarifies worker_id and 'follow-up instructions' maps to the instruction parameter. However, it does not explain instruction format, length, or constraints, so the compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send follow-up instructions') and identifies a clear resource ('existing Gemini worker') and action scope ('continue its workstream'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_to_agent (new delegation) and cleanup_agent_run (cleanup), so purpose clarity is strong.

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 provides clear context by indicating that this is for an existing worker and follow-up instructions, implying it is not for new tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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