continue_execution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions resuming until next breakpoint or event, but does not specify that execution may continue indefinitely if no breakpoint/event occurs, whether it can be interrupted, or if it requires an active debugger session. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is well front-loaded and gets straight to the point.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, for a debugger continuation tool, it would benefit from noting prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running) or behavioral details (e.g., will run indefinitely if no breakpoint set). The many sibling tools provide context but the description itself could be slightly richer.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to add. The description does not need to explain parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing missing.

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 execution until the next breakpoint or event, which is a specific action in a debugger context. It distinguishes from step_into and step_over, which also advance execution but by smaller increments.

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 description implies usage when you want to resume execution after a breakpoint is hit, but does not explicitly say when to use this vs step_into/step_over or if a debugger must be running. The context of sibling tools like start_debugger, step_into, step_over provides indirect guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.

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