continue_go

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sending a command to continue execution, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it clears breakpoints, what happens to the debugger state). For a debugger action, this is insufficient.

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 a single, direct sentence without fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity; additional context could be added without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's role in a debugger workflow, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, or how this fits with sibling tools like break_in or read_output. The agent lacks context 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain the required 'session_id' parameter, its format, or how to obtain it. This forces the agent to infer from the name alone, which is inadequate.

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 clearly states the action ('Send the KD g command') and its purpose ('to continue target execution'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like break_in or stop_kd. However, it could be more explicit about what 'continue target execution' entails (e.g., resuming a paused 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kd_command (which can send arbitrary commands). The description does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an active session, or when this command is appropriate (e.g., after a breakpoint).

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