pwndbg_run_until_stop

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

The description discloses blocking behavior, return of stop reason and register context, and streaming of progress/log notifications. Without annotations, it covers key behaviors but does not mention potential side effects like modifying execution state or requiring certain permissions.

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, well-structured with a purpose statement and bullet-pointed Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately explains return values and streaming. It covers all necessary aspects of the tool's behavior and parameters, leaving no gaps for an agent.

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 description provides full parameter semantics: session_id, action with 'run' and 'continue' values, and timeout as maximum seconds. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, giving clear meaning beyond type and default.

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 runs or continues a program and blocks until it stops or exits, with specific actions 'run' and 'continue'. It distinguishes from siblings like pwndbg_run, pwndbg_continue, and pwndbg_next by emphasizing blocking behavior and streaming progress.

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 explains when to use 'run' vs 'continue' and mentions the timeout parameter. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools like pwndbg_next or pwndbg_step, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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