gdb_continue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Continue program execution' implies a mutation that resumes a paused program, but it doesn't specify what happens (e.g., runs until next breakpoint or end), potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Continue program execution'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation tool in a debugging context with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover execution behavior, return values, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that likely resumes a debug session, more context is needed to ensure correct usage by an AI agent.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('GDB session ID'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a session ID is, how to obtain it, or its role in the continuation. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Continue program execution' states a clear action but is vague about scope and target. It specifies the verb 'continue' but doesn't clarify what program is being continued (a debugged program in GDB) or how it relates to sibling tools like gdb_start, gdb_step, or gdb_next. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from similar debugging commands.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an attached or started debug session), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like gdb_step (step into) or gdb_next (step over). Without context, an agent might misuse it or confuse it with other execution control tools.

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