continue_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful fact ('inherits the job's root'), but says nothing about permissions, side effects, timeout behavior, or what the required feedback does to the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its extreme brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. It is appropriately terse in form yet too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 7-parameter, 4-required tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without the semantics needed to invoke it correctly.

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% across 7 parameters, including required ones like job_id, execution_session_id, feedback, and cwd. The description documents none of them — not the meaning of 'feedback', the model/effort defaults, or the timeout behavior — so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 verb+resource ('Resume this job's CC-1 session') is present, but 'CC-1 session' is undefined jargon and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like execute_task, run_job, or run_jobs. An agent can guess this continues an existing job rather than starting one, but the purpose remains vague.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus execute_task, run_job, or review_task, and no prerequisites are given. The only hint is the word 'Resume', which implies continuing an existing session but never says so explicitly or names the alternative.

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