continue_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the asynchronous, non-blocking return ('returns immediately after the adapter acknowledges; does not wait'), and the state transition to 'paused' on the next stop. It omits error/failure behavior and any permission requirements, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and the crucial non-blocking caveat, then follow-up guidance. The get_output sentence is slightly tangential but still useful, and there is 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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior (async return, pause state) and next-step tooling well. The main gap is the undocumented sessionId, which for a stateful debug control tool is a meaningful omission.

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 single sessionId parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or its format/origin. Nothing compensates for the schema's silence, leaving the most important input semantically undocumented.

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 action (continue execution) on an implicit debug session resource, which maps cleanly onto a debugger resume. The contrast with sibling step_over/step_into/pause_execution is implied by the non-blocking resume semantics rather than named explicitly, so an agent can mostly but not fully distinguish it from the schema alone.

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 clear usage flow: returns immediately, does not wait for the next stop, and directs the agent to list_debug_sessions/get_stack_trace on the following pause and to get_output for stdout/stderr. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g. versus step_over for single-instruction stepping), keeping it below a 5.

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