debugger_step_over

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that the pause is held, that auto-resume is suppressed between steps, and that release still happens after maxPauseMs. It also tells the agent where to observe the results (debugger_get_state and debugger_get_scope), which is exactly the non-obvious, useful context an agent needs.

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 two well-organised sentences: the first states the core action and result, and the second adds the consequential behavior and data-access pointers. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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, no-output-schema command, the description is nearly complete: it defines the action, the pause semantics, timeout behavior, and where to retrieve resulting state. Minor gaps include not defining maxPauseMs, but in the debugger-devtools context this is an acceptable assumption.

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?

This tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. There are no parameter semantics to document, so the description cannot be expected to add parameter detail. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Step over from the current pause and stop at the next statement.' It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools debugger_step_into and debugger_step_out, leaving some distinction to inference from the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over debugger_step_into, debugger_step_out, debugger_resume, or other stepping alternatives. The description explains behavioral consequences of stepping but not selection criteria, so an agent must infer usage context from sibling names and the debugger state.

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