follow_up

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the prior context is already on the server side, reducing data transfer, but does not mention potential behaviors like session expiration, idempotency, or error conditions. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences delivering purpose, usage direction, and behavioral hint with zero wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key behavioral trait (no resending). It does not explain return format or error scenarios, but for a follow-up tool this is mostly sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all four parameters. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema's descriptions provide (e.g., session_id's origin, question's purpose). Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: continuing a previous Antigravity session via session_id for follow-up questions. It specifies the resource (session) and action (continue), and the note about not resending context differentiates it from starting new delegations, though explicit sibling differentiation is minimal.

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 explicitly directs use for follow-up questions after a prior delegation, and explains the benefit (no resending context). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'delegate' for new tasks, leaving some inference required.

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