debugger_step_into

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains pausing semantics, auto-resume behavior, maxPauseMs release, and where to get results (debugger_get_state, debugger_get_scope). While it doesn't mention side effects on breakpoints or what happens if not paused, the disclosed behavior is substantial and goes beyond a terse verb phrase.

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 compact: three sentences, each with distinct value—action, pause semantics, and postcondition/result location. It avoids tautology and structured redundancy. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter stepping tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, preconditions ('from the current pause'), duration, and where to inspect results. It does not explicitly state an error condition if not paused, but that is a minor gap given sibling context and existing debugger state tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% because there is nothing to describe. No parameter detail is needed, so this is effectively a non-issue; the description explains the behavior contextualizing the input-less call.

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 identifies a specific action: 'Step into from the current pause and stop at the next statement'. The verb 'step into' is precise in the debugging context and the resource (debugger execution state) is clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like debugger_step_over and debugger_step_out through the 'step into' phrase, and it also points to related state/scope retrieval tools.

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 explicitly explains when it is used ('from the current pause') and the behavioral implication: 'Stepping implies you want the pause held, so it will not auto-resume between steps'. It also gives a boundary condition ('released automatically after maxPauseMs if you stop'). This is strong usage guidance for an agent deciding to use this tool.

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