step_into

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the key behavioral trait of following calls into functions, which is essential. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like what happens if not currently in a debugger session, whether execution actually starts, or if this can be used while stopped at a breakpoint. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth expected for a debugger action.

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 impactful sentence that front-loads the action and parenthetical context. Every word adds value, with no wasted space. This is an excellent example of conciseness given 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 the tool has zero parameters and an output schema is present but not needed to explain, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling stepping tools, which is a minor omission for such a well-understood concept. For a debugger step-into command, the description covers the essential behavior adequately.

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 zero parameters, so the description correctly has nothing to explain about parameter meanings. Since schema description coverage is 100% (no params to cover), the baseline is 4 and the description need not add parameter information.

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 ('Step into the next instruction') and the key behavior ('follows calls into functions'), which defines the tool's scope well. However, it lacks differentiation from its sibling 'step_over', which would be important for an agent deciding between the two debugger stepping tools.

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 context as a debugger stepping command but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'step_over' or 'continue_execution'. The agent is left to infer from the description's mention of following calls that this is for stepping into function calls, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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