Resume execution after a breakpoint or step in the VICE emulator for Commodore PET debugging.
Resume execution after a breakpoint/step.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "pet_continue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the purpose without describing what happens on resume, edge cases (e.g., no breakpoint set), or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description lacks details on return values, side effects, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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%, yet the description adds no explanation for the 'session' parameter. The description does not help an agent understand the parameter's role or how to use it.
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 execution after a breakpoint/step' clearly states the action (resume execution) and the context (after a breakpoint/step), distinguishing it from siblings like pet_step (single step) and pet_run (start execution).
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 after a breakpoint or step, which provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the contrast with sibling tools is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.