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 disclose the terminating conditions, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it omits whether the call blocks until one of those conditions occurs, what it returns (e.g., stop reason), and what happens if the session is not paused.

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 the action first and the stop conditions enumerated. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, so the description must do more than it does. An agent still cannot tell what the call returns, how sessionId is obtained, or how timeout expiry is reported.

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% for two parameters. The description alludes to 'timeout' as a stop condition but never explains its units, default of 15, or behavior on expiry, and it says nothing about sessionId, which is the required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Continue execution') and enumerates the exact conditions that end the resume: next breakpoint, exception, process exit, or timeout. This contrasts implicitly with debug_step, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus debug_step or debug_launch, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that a session must be paused at a breakpoint). Usage is only inferable from the word 'continue'.

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