step_over

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running), side effects (execution state advances), or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and behavioral distinction efficiently. No extraneous information.

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 that this is a debugger step command with no annotations and an output schema (unprovided), the description fails to mention essential context: that the debugger must be active, that it advances execution, and what the output signifies. It is too sparse for a tool with behavioral complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add param meaning since the schema already covers all (none). No additional value needed.

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 over'), the resource ('next instruction'), and distinguishes it from stepping into calls via the parenthetical. This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'step_into'.

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 when to use it (over calls) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'step_into'. The parenthetical gives a hint but lacks direct guidance on conditional usage.

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