debug_continue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool blocks until execution stops and lists breakpoints and exceptions as stop conditions, which is essential for an agent to set expectations. It does not mention side effects or error scenarios, but the blocking behavior is well conveyed.

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 no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds crucial behavioral context about blocking and termination conditions.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple control tool with two self-explanatory parameters, and the blocking behavior is disclosed. However, it lacks relative guidance for an agent choosing among many debug control siblings, and no output behavior is described. Overall, it is minimally viable but not rich in context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about session_id or thread_id, which is acceptable given the baseline. The thread_id default behavior is captured in the schema, not the description.

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 the action ('Continue execution') and distinguishes it from step-level controls by mentioning blocking behavior and stop conditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 the tool is used when paused, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over step_over, step_into, step_out, or pause. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving selection largely to the agent's inference.

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