DebugRun

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the description's job is to add context. It does so meaningfully by disclosing that execution is non-blocking and that the bridge keeps servicing Pause/Status while the target runs - a real behavioral trait not captured by 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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Resume execution') and kept short. The second sentence elaborates the non-blocking mechanism, which is slightly redundant with the first clause but still earns its place by naming the affected Pause/Status path.

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 resume tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key non-blocking behavior, and 'Returns: Status message' sets return expectations. However, it leaves the lone parameter unexplained and gives no guidance on when execution resumes vs step semantics.

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 single parameter 'exception_mode' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it - no valid values, no meaning of 'normal', no effect on behavior. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it entirely fails to.

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+resource ('Resume execution') that clearly maps to the target debuggee, distinguishing it from the sibling pause/stop tools by implication. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from DebugStepIn/Over/Out, which also advance 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?

Usage is implied by 'Resume execution' (invoke after a pause/breakpoint), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the many DebugStep* siblings. A clear context is present but routing is left to inference.

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