Resume execution

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool waits for a stop up to a timeout, which is valuable. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be halted), what happens if already running, or exact return values. This partial transparency warrants a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first ('Resumes (continues) the target'), then adds timeout behavior. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise, 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 the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (though one is hinted via waitForStopMs), error conditions, or prerequisites like the target being in a halted state. This is a simple-looking tool but still lacks enough context for an agent to understand side effects or failure modes, so it scores a 2.

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 schema provides descriptions for only waitForStopMs (50% coverage), leaving sessionId meaningless. The main description does not mention either parameter or clarify sessionId's purpose. Since coverage is exactly 50% and the description fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter, this scores a 2.

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's function: 'Resumes (continues) the target and waits for it to stop again (e.g. a breakpoint)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debug_step (single-step) and debug_reset by focusing on continuing execution until a stop, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as debug_halt or debug_step. While it's implied that this is for resuming after a halt, there is no direct guidance on when to prefer it over other sibling tools. The context is clear but not explicit, so it scores a 3.

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