gdb_continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the halting conditions (breakpoint/completion) and the paused-state requirement, but omits whether this operation blocks until completion, error handling, or state side-effects.

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 with zero waste: first defines the action, second states the critical precondition. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential operational constraint (PAUSED prerequisite). For a simple control-flow tool among many siblings, this is sufficient, though noting blocking behavior would improve it.

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 tool accepts zero parameters (empty schema), which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification.

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 uses a specific verb ('Continue') with clear scope ('until next breakpoint or completion'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling stepping tools like gdb_step or gdb_next.

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?

Provides explicit precondition 'Only use when program is PAUSED' which constrains when-not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use gdb_step to advance line-by-line instead').

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