continue_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the call is asynchronous in effect ('Returns immediately') and that stopping is observed elsewhere. However, it does not mention failure modes, session requirements, or side effects beyond resuming execution.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and mode list are front-loaded, and the important return-timing behavior is stated immediately after.

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 definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly in all cases. It omits parameter semantics, especially 'until_addr', does not clarify session selection when 'session_id' is null, and gives no output or error expectations. The presence of wait_for_stop helps, but the gaps are material for a debugger control tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It implicitly explains 'mode' by listing possible values, but it does not explain the semantics of 'session_id' or 'until_addr', including when 'until_addr' applies or what format it expects.

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 names a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('the inferior'), then enumerates the accepted command modes: continue, step, next, stepi, nexti, finish, until. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like interrupt, wait_for_stop, and get_stop_reason.

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?

It explicitly says the tool returns immediately and directs the agent to wait_for_stop for the next stop event or to rely on async stop notification. This gives clear when-to-use context relative to wait_for_stop, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives like execute_command.

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