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 usefully discloses that the tool returns immediately after adapter acknowledgment and does not wait for the next stop. It also explains how to block or inspect the stop without waiting. It does not describe error behavior or exactly what the immediate return contains, leaving a modest gap.

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 front-loaded with the core action and its non-blocking behavior, then gives alternatives in a compact form. The middle sentence is dense and slightly ambiguous with 'show the same without waiting,' but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 description covers execution behavior, stopping semantics, and output-reading routing well, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits the required sessionId parameter and does not describe failure cases or what acknowledgment means, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 required parameter 'sessionId' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify session selection, required state, or identifier format, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Continue execution') and immediately distinguishes the operation from blocking alternatives such as wait_for_stop. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings without consulting other definitions.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to wait_for_stop when it needs to block until the next stop, and to list_debug_sessions or get_stack_trace for non-blocking stop inspection. It also points to get_output for stdout/stderr. The guidance is strong, though it does not explicitly contrast continue_execution against stepping tools.

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