keil_run

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

With no annotations, the description still conveys the state-changing resume action and adds the useful caveat that observed target state is reported separately from request submission. It does not cover session prerequisites or failure behavior, but the submission-versus-observation distinction is meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two compact clauses front-load the operation and then add a non-redundant reporting caveat. There is no filler or unnecessary structural overhead.

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 zero-parameter resume operation with an output schema, the description supplies the core action and a useful result-interpretation caveat without needing to document return fields. Explicit active-session or halted-target prerequisites would make it more complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so the zero-parameter baseline applies and no argument documentation is necessary. The description neither introduces nor obscures any inputs.

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?

"Resume target" gives a specific action and resource within the debugger tool family. It implies execution control rather than inspection, but does not explicitly distinguish resuming from keil_start_debug or the stepping tools.

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 word "Resume" implies use when an existing target execution is paused, providing some contextual guidance. However, there are no explicit prerequisites or instructions for choosing this tool over keil_start_debug, keil_reset, or stepping alternatives.

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