continue_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the program runs until a breakpoint/termination, whether the call blocks, or what state is required. Only the word 'continue' implies resumption.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; only the cryptic '(dc)' abbreviation is dead weight for an agent that has no command-line context.

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 output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a debugger control operation with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description omits required context such as session state, blocking behavior, and stop conditions.

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% and the single session_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate at all, offering no explanation of what session is targeted, though the optional parameter name is largely self-describing.

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 and resource ('continue program execution'), which an agent can readily distinguish from step_over/step_into siblings that advance only one instruction. However, it never explicitly states the boundary against those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus step_into/step_over, nor any mention of prerequisites such as being in a stopped session or having breakpoints set. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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