content_continue

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

Annotations already show the tool is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds that it saves observations and requires re-checking source authorization each call, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, explain the side effects of saving or what happens across multiple continuations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core mechanism. It is one sentence with no filler, though the phrase 'save observation' is vague enough that brevity comes at some cost.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, zero schema descriptions, and non-read-only annotations, this description is too thin. It doesn't explain how a continuation token is obtained, what saving observations entails, or what budget controls. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, but operational context is still insufficient.

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 carry parameter meaning. It gives some context for 'continuation' by saying continuation is used to continue reading, but it says nothing about 'budget', its default, or how it interacts with the continuation process. An agent would be guessing about important semantics for budget.

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 states a concrete action: use a continuation to continue reading a snapshot and save observations. It identifies the key resource (snapshot) and mechanism (continuation), which adds specificity beyond the tool name alone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like content_read or content_snapshot.

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 instruction to use a continuation implies that this tool is for resuming a prior snapshot read, and the auth re-check note gives a concrete operational rule for repeated use. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion conditions.

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