probe_resume

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only names the action without explaining effects on the target, prerequisites such as an established probe connection, or whether execution resumes from the current program counter.

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 undeniably short, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. Three words provide almost no information beyond the tool name and leave important operational context absent.

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 debugger control operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the expected state before resuming, what the return value is, or when this should be preferred over related sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention probe_id at all. The single parameter's meaning, optionality, and default behavior are left completely unexplained, so an agent gets no helpful semantic information.

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 states a verb and an object ('Resume the target'), so it conveys the basic operation. However, 'the target' is undefined, and the sibling tool 'continue_target' appears to describe the same action, so the description does not distinguish this tool from a likely synonym.

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, whether it should follow a halt, or how it relates to alternatives like continue_target or probe_step. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool's name and sibling context.

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