stepOut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is BLOCKING and that it waits for the next pause, and mentions observing return value/calling context. However, it does not describe timeout behavior, prerequisites (must be paused), or failure cases when no caller exists.

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 concise sentences with no redundant content. The '[STEP 7] BLOCKING:' prefix provides context without verbosity.

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 step tool with one optional timeout parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the action and intended use despite not covering timeout expiry or return format. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the clear purpose statement.

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 only parameter (timeout) is fully described in the input schema with a default value. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it scores baseline 3 for a schema with 100% coverage.

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 states a specific action ('step out of the current function') and outcome ('wait until the debugger pauses again in the caller'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like stepInto and stepOver by specifying the caller context.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Use to observe the return value and the state of the calling context.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with stepInto or stepOver or state when not to use, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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