resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes side effects ('advances code execution until next breakpoint or completion'), prerequisites, and return values ('confirmation of resume command'). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, timeouts, or other runtime behaviors that could be relevant.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each add distinct value: purpose, side effects/prerequisites, return values, and usage/alternatives. There's no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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's moderate complexity (debugger control), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, prerequisites, side effects, return values, and alternatives. However, it lacks details about error conditions or what specific confirmation format is returned, leaving some gaps for a debugger tool.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on behavioral aspects. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the (non-existent) parameters.

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 specific action ('Continues full execution of the debugger from current breakpoint') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives like 'step_over' or 'step_out' for single-step execution. It precisely defines the verb (continue execution) and resource (debugger from breakpoint).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to continue program flow after inspection') and provides clear alternatives ('step_over' or 'step_out' for single-step execution'). It also specifies prerequisites ('requires an active, paused debugger session'), giving comprehensive guidance on usage context.

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