Continue Execution

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

Annotations already disclose destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by warning that resuming 'changes debuggee execution state and may allow the target to perform normal application side effects before the next stop.' No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage constraints and a side-effect warning. Every sentence contributes meaning; there is no filler or 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?

For a mutation-style debugger tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, invocation timing, exclusions, and side effects. It does not explicitly describe the call's return value, but the waitForStop parameter already conveys the relevant stopping behavior.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that threadId refers to a paused thread, which is already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resume one paused thread in a live debug session.' It clearly distinguishes this from postmortem/crash-dump tools by explicitly excluding those targets.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'after inspecting a stopped state when execution should proceed to the next stop or termination.' It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use condition for crash dumps, but it does not name the alternative sibling tool for postmortem analysis.

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