debug_continue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the main loop and termination conditions, but it does not mention that the call blocks until a condition is met or timeout_ms expires, nor what side effects occur when the process exits (e.g., session state changes). These are meaningful gaps for a tool that can run for minutes by default.

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?

Exactly one sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each clause adds meaningful information about the stop conditions. This is an appropriately concise definition.

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, the schema fully documents parameters, and the description covers the core behavior, so an agent can likely invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the return behavior, blocking semantics, or how the session state changes after exit or timeout, which would aid a less experienced agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'until an address is reached' loosely mirrors the until_address parameter, but it adds no detail beyond the schema's own explanation. The timeout_ms and session_id parameters are not enhanced by the description.

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 ('Continue execution'), a clear resource ('the debugged process'), and explicit termination conditions (breakpoint, address, exit). This distinguishes it from debug_step (single-step) and the esil/rzil run variants, which operate on emulated environments rather than a debugged process.

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 phrase 'Continue execution' implies the tool is used to resume a paused debug session, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus debug_step or other debug controls. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, leaving the agent to infer the proper context from the sibling list and schema.

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