windbg_continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resumes execution, returns on specific events, and auto-breaks on timeout for recovery. This important behavioral context goes beyond the schema, though it omits state prerequisites like requiring the target to be paused.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and returning conditions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, return conditions, and timeout safety net. It lacks a note about whether the target must be paused before continuing, and there is no output schema, but the main usage context is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'timeout' parameter, which already has a clear description ('Seconds before auto-break'). The description's mention of auto-break on timeout reinforces but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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's action ('Resume execution') with the specific cdb command 'g', and details return conditions (breakpoint, exception, or exit). This distinguishes it from stepping or run-to tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it blocks until a breakpoint, exception, or exit, and the timeout auto-break allows recovery. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like windbg_go or windbg_continue_async, so it stops short of full guidance.

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