Dbg Step Into

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers essentially nothing. It does not say that an active debug session is required, what happens if execution is not paused, that it mutates debugger/execution state, or how it behaves on a call boundary versus a plain instruction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding or waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured for a tool with real preconditions.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only a fragment of a sentence, so nothing compensates for the missing context. For a debugger-control tool the description should at minimum mention the required active/paused session state and the step-into semantics relative to dbg_step_over.

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%, with both timeout and instance_id documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how timeout interacts with stepping or when an instance_id override is needed, but it is not required to.

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 phrase 'Step into instruction' names a specific debugger action (single-instruction step that descends into calls), so an agent familiar with debuggers can tell what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like dbg_step_over, dbg_continue, or dbg_run_to, which is the one gap keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With dbg_step_over, dbg_continue, and dbg_run_to in the sibling set, the description should state when to step into versus step over, but it leaves the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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