continue_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the core behavior—execution continues and stops at the next breakpoint—but it does not state what happens if no breakpoint is encountered, whether a debug session must already be active, or what side effects occur on target 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 a single, directly relevant sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and outcome, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 is simple and the description captures the essential purpose, but it leaves out useful context for an agent navigating a large sibling set: whether a prior connection/halt is required, behavior when no breakpoint is set, and how this differs from probe_resume. These gaps are meaningful given no annotations or output schema are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented probe_id parameter. It does not mention probe_id at all, though the parameter's name and default value in the schema offer some minimal semantic signal.

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 the target') and the expected outcome ('until the next breakpoint'). It is specific about the affected resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling probe_resume beyond the breakpoint qualifier.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like probe_resume or probe_step. The description implies a debugging scenario but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this tool over similar siblings.

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