gdb_continue

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states the outcome (continue until breakpoint or exit), but omits important details such as prerequisites (program must be suspended), what happens if already running, error conditions, or whether the tool blocks. The output schema likely covers return values, but behavioral context is lacking.

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, clear sentence that contains no superfluous words. Every word contributes to the purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about when the tool is applicable (e.g., program must be in a suspended state) and side effects. It is minimally complete for a simple action but could be more robust.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter (session_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 action ('continue') and the resource ('program execution') with a specific condition ('until next breakpoint or exit'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdb_step (single step) and gdb_run (start execution from scratch).

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 the tool is used to resume execution, but it does not explicitly guide when to use it over alternatives like gdb_step or gdb_raw_command. No exclusions or contextual cues are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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