Debugger: Continue

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) already indicate mutation and side effects, but the description adds specific behavior: execution resumes until breakpoint/STOP/error, and it only works from a halted state. This goes beyond annotation basics and gives the agent a concrete expected behavior. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then the follow-up and precondition. No filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the immediate next step (use debugger_wait_for_stop) and the precondition (stopped). It does not mention the immediate return value, but the description implies the continue call doesn't provide the halt—so the follow-up is necessary. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is adequate.

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 device parameter is fully described in the schema, including its type, role (Roku IP or serial), and default behavior (omit to use focused tab). The description adds nothing about parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; there is no extra value from the description.

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 the specific verb 'resume execution' and the resource (debugger). It clarifies the condition under which execution runs (until next breakpoint/STOP/error). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like debugger_pause or debugger_step, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Only meaningful while `stopped`', which tells the agent when the tool should be used. It also names the follow-up tool debugger_wait_for_stop, guiding the agent on what to do next. It does not mention when to prefer it over debugger_pause/step, but the halted-state condition is a clear gating rule.

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