index_code_continue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool continues an indexing job, implying a mutation or processing action, but does not describe what 'continue' entails (e.g., resuming from a checkpoint, handling errors, or time/rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted information.

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 the complexity of continuing an indexing job (a mutation operation), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or dependencies on other tools, making it incomplete for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any details about the 'job_id' parameter (e.g., format, source, or constraints). Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so, resulting in minimal added value beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 the action ('Continue') and the target ('an in-progress indexing job'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_code' or 'get_index_job', which could provide context on when to use this versus starting a new job or checking status.

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 there is an existing indexing job to resume, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'index_code' for new jobs or 'get_index_job' for checking status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.

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