Resumes execution of a halted STM32 core via session ID, returning confirmation or notice if already running.
Resume execution of a halted core.
Args: session_id: Session ID from debug_session_start.
Returns: Confirmation, or notice if the core was already running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavior — the already-running case — but doesn't say where execution runs to (next breakpoint? indefinitely?), whether breakpoints/watchpoints persist, or what state the core is left in. That's significant missing context for a tool that hands control back to the target.
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?
Front-loaded with the action, then a compact Args/Returns block with zero filler. The docstring-style scaffolding is slightly heavier than needed for a single parameter, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so the Returns line is bonus rather than required, and one param is a small surface. But for a control-flow mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description should say more about post-call execution state than it does.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema only offers 'Session Id' as a bare title, but the description compensates by tying the value to its source ('from debug_session_start'), which is genuinely new information. It still doesn't describe the ID's format or what an invalid/stale session ID does.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Resume execution of a halted core'), which makes it trivially distinguishable from the opposite sibling debug_halt and from debug_step. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the 'halted core' scope does the disambiguation work.
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 precondition ('halted core') implies when the tool applies, and says nothing about when it does not — e.g. whether to use debug_step vs debug_resume vs debug_wait_halt, or what happens if no session is active. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.