Continue a previous run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the keepSession requirement and the return of a new runId, but it does not mention that the 'model' parameter is ignored or discuss side effects on the previous run or error conditions, leaving notable gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and purpose, the second adds the prerequisite and return value. This is concise and well-structured.

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 covers the core action, the prerequisite, and the return value, which is adequate for a simple follow-up tool with no output schema. It lacks explicit details about failure modes or the ignored model parameter, but the schema enriches parameter semantics.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, including an explicit note that 'model' is IGNORED. The description text itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the action ('Sends a follow-up instruction'), the target resource ('session of an earlier run'), and the benefit ('so the subagent keeps everything it already worked out'). This distinguishes it from the sibling opencode_dispatch, which would start a new run.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires that the earlier run was dispatched with keepSession: true') and points to the next step ('Returns a new runId to wait on'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the distinction from dispatch is implied.

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