kd_go

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Resume', implying a state change, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, required VM state, or whether it affects a debug session. No behavioral detail beyond the verb.

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 brief sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and clarity: 'target (g)' is cryptic, and the sentence does not front-load useful information. It is concise but not effective.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'go' does, the expected VM state, or how it relates to other kd_* or vm_* tools. An agent would need to guess the purpose and usage.

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 schema has one parameter 'vm' with description 'VM name as registered in vms.yaml', which is clear and self-explanatory. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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 'Resume the target (g)' states a verb ('Resume') but the resource is vague: 'target (g)' could mean guest, but it's not explicit. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like vm_resume, which likely also resumes a VM. No clear resource or scope is defined, making it ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes vm_resume, kd_attach, kd_break, etc., but the description offers no conditions or exclusions. An agent cannot determine whether to call kd_go or vm_resume without additional context.

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