continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution until a breakpoint or script end, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens if no breakpoints exist. For a tool that controls script execution, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core functionality. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of a debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like interaction with breakpoints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'session_id' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 ('Continue script execution') and the scope ('until the next breakpoint or end of script'), which is specific and distinguishes it from stepping tools like step_into or step_over. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop' or 'detach' in terms of execution flow, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description implies usage during debugging sessions to resume execution, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like stepping tools or stopping. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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