windbg_step_out

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core behavior (run until function return) and references the cdb command ('gu'), but it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether breakpoints will interrupt execution, or any output behavior. This leaves some room for agent uncertainty, though the operation is relatively simple.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential meaning efficiently. Every word earns its place, and the addition of the cdb command provides useful cross-reference without unnecessary verbosity.

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, parameterless debugging control operation, the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool does, and given the lack of output schema and simple input schema, no further detail is required. The tool's place among sibling stepping tools is clear from the name and description.

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 takes zero parameters, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds the cdb command reference, which is useful context but not parameter-related. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('the current function returns'), with a specific scope. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like windbg_step_in and windbg_step_over by explicitly defining step-out behavior.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to execute until the current function returns. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is unambiguous. Sibling tool names (step_in, step_over) imply alternatives, so the guidance is implied but not explicit.

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