windbg_continue_async

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states that it does not install a timeout and never sends break-in, which are critical behavioral traits for a debugger control tool. It does not mention every consequence, but the key caveats are covered.

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 two short sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and important caveats in the second. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does (resume), that it is asynchronous, and two key behavioral constraints (no timeout, no break-in). This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the rich sibling context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The mention of 'cdb g' is not a parameter but the underlying command implementation.

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 explicitly states 'Resume execution with cdb 'g'' which identifies the specific action and resource, and 'return immediately' clarifies the async behavior. This distinguishes it from synchronous alternatives like windbg_continue or windbg_go.

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 phrase 'return immediately' clearly implies this tool is for fire-and-forget execution where the caller does not need to wait for a breakpoint or timeout. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for selecting this over synchronous continue/step commands.

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