debug_continue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully disclose the blocking semantics: it waits for the next stop or a timeout. But it omits what a 'stop' entails, whether control returns on breakpoint vs exit, and any session/auth requirements.

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 no filler; the core behavior (resume and block) leads and the timeout caveat follows.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description leaves key gaps: it does not say what state/result comes back on a stop, whether the session must be paused first, or how errors/timeouts are surfaced.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never explains session_id or timeout_ms. The word 'timeout' hints at the second parameter but gives no units, default, or relationship to the required session_id.

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 (resume) and resource (debug session), clearly distinct from siblings like debug_launch, debug_close, and debug_state. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other debug_* tools or name which one to reach for instead.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stating that a session must already be launched and paused, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the context entirely from the verb.

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