edb_continue_to

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

Annotations indicate not readOnly and not destructive. Description adds that it sets a temporary breakpoint and runs, providing behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and to the point, with no wasted words. Slightly redundant due to including args section that mirrors schema, but still efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied return string), the description is complete. It explains the temporary breakpoint behavior and return value. Could add more context about side effects, but sufficient.

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 already describes the address parameter fully (hex or function name). The description repeats the same information, adding no new meaning. Given schema coverage is effectively high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool continues execution until a specific address is reached, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like edb_continue (which continues without target) and step 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 description implies usage (set a temporary breakpoint and run to that address), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like edb_continue or step_into. No when-not-to-use or alternative names mentioned.

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