windbg_step_in

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the core behavior: executing exactly one instruction and stepping into calls. It also references the underlying cdb command 't', adding useful context. It does not describe potential side effects, but for a simple step-in control this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that uses every word effectively. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Single-step one instruction') and adds the essential qualifier ('stepping INTO calls').

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the exact debugger action and the underlying command. The agent can rely on sibling tools to inspect state afterward, so no further details are required.

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 coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate here.

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 states the tool's function: 'Single-step one instruction, stepping INTO calls (cdb 't')'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like windbg_step_over and windbg_step_out by explicitly indicating 'stepping INTO calls'.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent wants to step into a called function, contrasting with step-over/step-out. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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