grok_continue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the two continuation modes but does not disclose behavioral traits like session state mutation, rate limits, or data persistence. It lacks details on side effects of continuing a session.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains two modes. Zero wasted words, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not define what a 'headless session' is, how to obtain a session ID, or what the output contains. It assumes prior knowledge, leaving the agent underinformed.

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. It only explains the 'resume' parameter and implies a '--continue' behavior, but fails to describe the other 8 parameters including the required 'prompt'. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 tool's purpose: continuing a Grok headless session. It specifies two modes (resume or --continue), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like grok_ask, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 explains two usage scenarios (resume a specific session or continue the most recent) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like grok_ask. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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