continue_execution

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, non-readonly), and the description adds a valuable behavioral trait beyond them: calling while already running yields already_running rather than an error. It does not describe what happens at the breakpoint stop or return format, but adds real context.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and termination condition, followed by the useful edge-case behavior. No 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?

For a simple execution-control tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and the key edge case (already_running). It could mention interaction with breakpoints/stops, but is nearly complete.

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 100% and the single optional 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema (omit for default target). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (resumes execution), the resource (target device), and the termination condition (until the next breakpoint). This distinguishes it from step, run_for_duration, and run_to_line without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use pattern ('make sure it is running' is expressible) and clarifies the already-running case. It does not name or exclude alternatives like step or run_for_duration, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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