desmume_continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a bounded interval and return of a stop/timeout, but does not explain side effects (e.g., resuming execution changes state), prerequisites, or what constitutes a 'stop'. The captureContext parameter is not mentioned, so the tool's context capture behavior is hidden.

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 sentence, direct and free of filler. It front-loads the action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the only source of context. It does not explain return value structure, prerequisites, or how this relates to other wait/step/capture tools. For a debugger control operation, this is 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?

The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The only hint is 'bounded interval' which likely maps to timeoutMs, but timeoutMs, captureContext, additionalRegions, and expectedBreakpointId are not explained. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('ARM9 execution') with the expected outcome ('return the first observed stop or timeout'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools at the action level, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as desmume_step_instruction or desmume_wait_for_stop. It does not mention prerequisites, e.g., that the emulator must be paused or that a breakpoint must be set, so usage context is lacking.

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