go

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that execution is started and a confirmation returned, without disclosing potential side effects (e.g., breakpoint interactions) or whether the tool is safe to call in any state.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence defining purpose and return, containing no redundant information.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple action, the description covers the basic behavior and return value. However, it lacks nuance about when the tool is applicable (e.g., only when halted) and the exact format of the confirmation (output schema not provided).

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details as none exist. A score of 4 reflects the baseline for no parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Start or continue program execution on the target,' which is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like step or halt.

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 for running the program freely but does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives such as step for single-stepping or run_to_line for targeting a specific line.

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