send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that only idle sessions are targetable and that managed callers are team-limited, but it omits key behavioral traits such as side effects of sending a prompt (e.g., session becoming active, executing actions), error behavior for non-idle sessions, and permission requirements beyond the team restriction.

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 with no filler, and it front-loads the core action and constraint. It is appropriately terse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 0% schema parameter coverage, the description should provide enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It gives a broad purpose and a team restriction, but lacks parameter meanings, return behavior, error conditions, and relationships to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps.

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 by explaining the two parameters. It does not mention 'prompt' or 'agent_id' at all, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the parameter names. This fails to provide any added semantic clarity.

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 ('Continue') and resource ('existing idle provider-native session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'spawn' (creation) and 'message_send' (likely messaging). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the focus on 'existing idle' sessions makes the purpose fairly unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when an existing idle provider-native session should be continued. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings such as 'message_send' or 'spawn', so the guidance is minimal.

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