Debugger: Continue

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description adds value by explaining what the mutation does (resume until next halt) and how the next halt is observed. It does not expand on error behavior or whether the call blocks until stopped, but the described flow is sufficient.

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?

Three short sentences carry the action, the follow-up, and the precondition with no filler. Important constraints are front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan and act on.

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 single-optional-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, termination conditions, and next step. It could add the return/response behavior, but the explicit 'use debugger_wait_for_stop' guidance makes the expected interaction complete enough.

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 only parameter, device, is fully documented in the schema (optional IP/serial or focused tab). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage; the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Resume) and resource (execution from a halted state), and characterizes the behavior precisely: run until the next breakpoint, STOP, or error. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like debugger_step (single step) and debugger_pause (halt 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?

Explicitly gives the precondition 'Only meaningful while stopped' and prescribes the follow-up call debugger_wait_for_stop, giving the agent a usage sequence. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but for this tool the context is clear enough.

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