stepInto

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is blocking and waits for the next pause, which is a core behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error conditions, potential timeouts (despite the timeout parameter existing in schema), or prerequisites like an active debugging session.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the action and blocking nature. The additional suggestion to follow with getScopeVariables() adds value without waste. Every word earns its place, and the step label is minor but not intrusive.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a recommended next step. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., what happens if no function call exists), but given the simplicity of the operation, it is reasonably complete for an agent to execute 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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions (timeout) with a clear explanation, so the description does not need to elaborate. The description itself does not add any information about parameters, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score 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 clearly states 'step into the next function call, then wait until the debugger pauses again' which precisely defines the action. This distinguishes stepInto from stepOver and stepOut by the specific behavior of entering the function and waiting for a pause.

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 (e.g., when wanting to inspect inner-function state) and suggests a follow-up with getScopeVariables(), but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like stepOver or stepOut. No exclusionary guidance is provided, though the blocking and stepping nature is clear.

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