editor_debug_continue

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

With no annotations, the description alone carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Resume execution in debugger' without revealing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be paused at a breakpoint), behavior if no debug session is active, or whether it is a control action that alters debugger state. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter debugger control tool.

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 simple zero-parameter command, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details that would make it complete. It doesn't explain the required debugger state (paused vs. running), the effect on breakpoints, or how it differs from runtime_resume, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details because none exist, and no additional parameter meaning is required.

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 'Resume execution in debugger' clearly states a specific action and resource, and it visibly distinguishes itself from sibling debugger step commands by implying continuation rather than single-step execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling runtime_resume or clarify 'continue' semantics (e.g., run to next breakpoint/end), so it falls short of a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like editor_debug_step, editor_debug_step_over, or runtime_resume. The description gives no context about requiring a paused debugger state or when this command is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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