continue_execution

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it signals that execution resumes and that the tool blocks until a stop or exit event occurs. This is useful context that matters for an agent deciding whether to call it. Annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-open-world behavior, so the added value is the 'wait' semantics.

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 a single, tightly crafted sentence that front-loads the core action ('Resume execution') and then adds the outcome ('wait for the next stop or exit event'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear annotations, existing output schema), the description fully covers the essential behavior. The sibling context (debugger controls) provides enough surrounding context to make the tool's role unambiguous, and nothing seems missing.

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 zero parameters and a fully described (empty) schema, there is no parameter information to embellish. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is high. The description's focus on behavior is appropriate.

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 'Resume execution and wait for the next stop or exit event' uses a specific verb ('Resume') and clearly identifies the resource ('execution') and the expected outcome (waiting for a stop/exit). This distinguishes it from sibling stepping commands like step_over or step_into, which involve single-step operations.

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 implies usage—after a pause, continue running until the next breakpoint or termination—but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. In the context of debugger sibling tools, the intended use is fairly clear, yet there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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