Continue an experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "读取...当前状态" does convey that this is a non-mutating state read, which is useful given the name continue_experience could imply mutation. But it says nothing about whether reading resumes/activates the session, what happens on an invalid or expired session_id, or error behavior.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource before the usage context. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally say what the returned state contains and how it should be used. "当前状态" is vague, so the agent knows the shape of the call but not the shape of the result.

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%; the single session_id parameter is already documented in the schema as the id returned by launch_experience. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (读取) and resource (体验会话的当前状态), and clarifies that the purpose is resuming an experience across conversations or web pages. This differentiates it in spirit from launch_experience and finish_experience, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a usage context — continuing an experience between conversations or web pages — which implies when to call it. However, it names no alternative tool and states no exclusion or precondition (e.g., what to do if the session is expired or was never launched).

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