继续执行

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

Annotations provide limited behavioral cues (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description discloses that execution continues until breakpoint/exception, but does not explicitly mention that executing modifies program state (e.g., changing registers, memory). While this is standard for execution tools, the description adds moderate value beyond 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and the stopping conditions, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 that it continues execution from the current position until a breakpoint or exception is encountered. This verb+resource definition is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdb_step (single step) and gdb_next (next line).

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 implies usage after a break or step to resume full execution, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gdb_run (start from beginning) or gdb_finish (continue until function return). No direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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