agy_continue

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only mentions 'asynchronously'. It fails to explain critical aspects like what 'exact' means, whether the conversation is modified, or implications of parameters like 'dangerously_skip_permissions'. Barely any behavioral insight.

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 sentence, so it is concise, but it is also under-specified. It front-loads the action ('Continue'), but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it barely adequate.

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 has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and siblings with related purposes, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what the output schema provides, or any prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a conversation_id).

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description itself adds no information about any of the 7 parameters, leaving their semantics entirely to parameter names. This is a critical gap.

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 continues an Antigravity conversation, specifying 'exact' and 'asynchronously'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like agy_start or agy_cancel, which handle conversation lifecycle, limiting differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agy_start (starting new) or agy_cancel (cancelling). The context of sibling tools is present but the description omits any usage context, leaving the agent to infer.

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