continue

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

Without annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior: it continues execution until a breakpoint or program end, and clarifies the optional modes. However, it does not discuss default return values or side effects, leaving some uncertainty about what happens when no breakpoint is encountered.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain the return value when no breakpoint is hit (e.g., program ends) or when neither waitForBreakpoint nor collectHits is used. It also omits error conditions, which lowers completeness for a tool with five parameters.

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%, so parameter meanings are already defined. The description adds context for the waitForBreakpoint and collectHits parameters by explaining their effects, but does not add new information for timeout, threadId, or sessionId beyond the schema.

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 tool continues execution until the next breakpoint or program end. It distinguishes between the default behavior and the specialized modes (waitForBreakpoint and collectHits), which differentiates it from other step-related sibling tools.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool (continue execution) and mentions two specific sub-behaviors (waitForBreakpoint, collectHits). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like step_in or step_over, which might be needed for precise step-by-step control.

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