Debug continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (continue a paused thread) and implies a precondition (paused), but does not disclose consequences such as the thread running until the next breakpoint, potential side effects on the debug session, or what happens if the thread is not paused. The 'escape hatch' label suggests low-level behavior but remains vague.

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 13-word sentence that is thematically front-loaded with 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' to set context. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and scope without redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter explanation. The description covers the core action but omits expected return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances of a low-level DAP command. Given the complexity of debug runtimes, the description is not sufficient for an agent to fully understand the implications of invoking this 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%, and the description provides only implicit references to parameters via 'one paused thread' (thread_id) and 'deployment debug runtime' (deployment_id). It does not explicitly explain the meaning or format of either parameter, leaving the agent to infer that deployment_id identifies the deployment and thread_id the thread. This is insufficient given the schema's sparse documentation.

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 a specific action ('continue') on a specific resource ('one paused thread for a deployment debug runtime'), which distinguishes it from sibling stepping tools like debug_step_in/out/over and debug_pause. It explicitly identifies the scope and the low-level nature, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' implies this is for advanced use when finer-grained control is needed, and 'for a deployment debug runtime' scopes it to deployment debug contexts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stepping vs continue) and does not mention exclusions or fallback options.

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