resume_execution

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

There are no behavioral annotations (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), so the description must carry the full burden. It states the core operation but does not disclose potential side effects, error cases (e.g., calling when execution is already running), or return values. This is minimal but not misleading, earning a borderline average score.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action and trigger condition without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex semantics.

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 with no output schema, but the description explains when to invoke it (after a breakpoint or pause) and what it does (resume execution). While it lacks detail on error behavior or side effects, this is a minimal debugger control operation, and the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most scenarios.

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 input schema has zero properties, meaning there are no parameters to describe. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4 because the description cannot add parameter meaning 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 specific action ('Resume') applied to the resource ('JavaScript execution') and the condition ('after a breakpoint or pause'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_execution and the step_* commands, which serve different debugger control functions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('after a breakpoint or pause'), implying it should be used when execution is paused. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tool names like step_over and step_into signal that resume is for continuing normal execution, providing adequate guidance.

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