pwndbg_continue

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses blocking behavior, timeout, and streaming output. However, it does not mention potential errors, effects on debugger state, or how to handle interruption. Adds some value beyond schema but leaves gaps.

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 concise: two sentences clearly stating purpose, behavior, and side effects, followed by a brief parameter list. No wasted words, well-organized.

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 is simple and the description covers purpose, blocking behavior, and parameters. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, it omits error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., must have a running process), and doesn't confirm that it resumes from current point.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: session_id as UUID and timeout as maximum wait seconds with default 30. This goes beyond the schema types. Could be more detailed (e.g., how to obtain session_id) but is sufficient.

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 'Continue program execution until the next breakpoint or exit.', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pwndbg_run or pwndbg_next, which have similar purposes.

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 mentions blocking behavior and streaming output but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pwndbg_run, pwndbg_step). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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