mcp-netcoredbg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the current line executes, but doesn't disclose what happens next (advance to next line, pause behavior), side effects on debugger state, or error conditions if the thread is not paused.

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, efficient sentence of 12 words. The core action is front-loaded, with the behavioral clarification in parentheses. No wasted words or redundant phrases.

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 debugger control operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral concept. However, given the lack of annotations, it should ideally explain execution flow (where execution pauses next) or prerequisites (requires paused thread).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully documented in the schema (threadId and sessionId with defaults/references). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('step over') and resource ('current line') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'step_into' via the parenthetical '(without stepping into functions)'. This clearly defines the scope and differentiates it from other step operations.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name 'step_into', the phrase 'without stepping into functions' provides clear implicit guidance on when to use this tool versus stepping into functions. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance or mention of alternatives like 'step_out' or 'continue'.

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