stepOver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses 'BLOCKING' behavior and that it waits until the debugger pauses again, which is essential for a control-flow tool. It does not mention timeout failure behavior or return value details, but the schema covers the timeout parameter, and the blocking trait is the key behavioral risk.

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 with a step tag and a 'BLOCKING' warning, followed by a direct operational instruction. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 control-flow tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior (step over, block, wait) and suggests an immediate next step. It does not describe timeout edge cases or what happens if the pause never occurs, but this is a minor gap given the schema's timeout documentation and the tool's narrow scope.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single timeout parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implying that the tool waits (which aligns with timeout). This meets the baseline 3 but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly states the action: 'step over the current statement without entering function calls'. It clearly distinguishes from stepInto by saying 'without entering function calls' and from stepOut by anchoring on 'current statement'. The [STEP 7] context and follow-up instruction reinforce its specific role in the debugging flow.

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 gives a clear usage pattern: it is blocking, waits until the debugger pauses, and should be followed with getScopeVariables() to observe variable changes. It implicitly contrasts with stepping into functions, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Clear context but no exclusions.

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