debug_continue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key non-obvious trait: the target keeps running past the timeout rather than the call failing or blocking indefinitely. It omits error behavior (target already running, invalid name) and any mention of session state, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the timeout consequence and next steps. No redundant restatement of the name and nothing that could be cut.

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 no explanation, and the essential resume/timeout behavior is covered. The remaining gap is the unexplained required 'name' parameter and absent failure modes, which matter for a debugger control call.

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 compensate. It explains timeout_s as the wait window before returning, but the required 'name' parameter is never explained — it could be a session, thread, or target identifier — leaving half the parameters semantically undefined.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resume the target') plus the blocking-until-stop semantics, which distinguishes it from debug_wait (wait only) and debug_interrupt (halt) named in the same sentence.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent after a timeout to debug_wait (keep waiting) or debug_interrupt (halt), which is exactly the decision point an agent faces. It does not cover the reverse direction — e.g., when to prefer debug_step or debug_break over resuming — but the timeout branch is handled cleanly.

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