debug_continue

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

The description discloses that the tool resumes a paused game and returns confirmation, but beyond that, there is no behavioral context. Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds little beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate line for return).

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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose and the return value. It could mention that the game must be paused to use this tool, but that is implied.

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 100% for the single parameter thread_id, which already has a clear description and default. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so 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 action and target: 'Resume a paused game.' It uses a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('game'), and the sibling tools include debug_pause, so it is well-differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_step_over or debug_continue. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., game must be paused) or exclusions.

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