profitpilot_continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool continues a reasoning session using the client's response and that it requires a prior generated prompt. However, it does not explain side effects such as session state advancement, whether the call is reversible, what happens on invalid sessionId, or what output the agent should expect next.

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 two short sentences with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence and adds the critical usage precondition in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 and schema together explain the tool's purpose, required parameters, and workflow position. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the tool returns or how the agent should continue afterwards. For a stateful, iterative reasoning tool, that missing behavioral outcome is a noticeable gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: 'respuesta del cliente' aligns with the response parameter, and sessionId is already described as coming from profitpilot_analyze. There is no meaningful enrichment beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Continúa una sesión de razonamiento con la respuesta del cliente' – it clearly identifies the continuation action. It also differentiates from profitpilot_analyze by stating that this tool must be called after executing the prompt generated by profitpilot_analyze. However, it does not explicitly contrast against profitpilot_status or profitpilot_reset, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'Debe llamarse después de ejecutar el prompt generado por profitpilot_analyze o profitpilot_continue.' This tells the agent exactly when in the workflow to invoke the tool. It does not provide exclusions or direct alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is explicit and actionable.

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