roku_debug_continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (resume execution) and the precondition (stopped state), but does not disclose what happens if called while running, whether execution resumes asynchronously, or that the session may immediately re-stop at the next breakpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, a synonym, and the required state without padding—appropriate size for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists to cover return values, and the empty input schema needs no parameter documentation. The description supplies the purpose and the precondition. The only gap is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over roku_debug_step or roku_debug_execute, given 21 debug siblings.

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 tool takes 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Continue (resume) execution from a stopped state.' It clearly conveys what the tool does—resuming a paused debug session. It differentiates from siblings like roku_debug_step only implicitly, without naming the alternatives.

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?

'From a stopped state' implies when the tool applies, but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and names no alternatives among the sibling debug tools (step, stop, execute). An agent must infer that this is for resuming after a breakpoint stop.

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