Dbg Continue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not explain what happens on continue (e.g., runs until next breakpoint or exit), whether the call blocks, how the timeout behaves, or what instance_id overrides.

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 only two words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. For a debugger control operation, this is too terse to be useful, and there is nothing front-loaded because there is no content to front-load.

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 debugger execution-control tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine preconditions, side effects, or return behavior from this text.

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%, so the schema already documents both timeout and instance_id. The description adds no syntax, units, or interaction details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

"Continue execution" essentially restates the tool name dbg_continue and the title Dbg Continue, adding no distinguishing information. It does not differentiate this resume operation from siblings like dbg_step_over, dbg_run_to, or dbg_start, which all advance execution in different ways.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dbg_step_into, dbg_step_over, dbg_run_to, or dbg_start. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active debug session) or the conditions under which continuing is appropriate.

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