windbg_step_over

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the core behavior: single-step and skip over function calls (equivalent to the 'p' command in cdb). It does not mention additional details like whether it will stop on exceptions or interrupts, but for a simple stepping operation, the essential trait is clear.

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-crafted sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes a useful parenthetical reference to the underlying command. Every word adds value, with no wasted content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), this one-line description is fully sufficient to convey what the tool does and how it differs from related tools. It aligns with the sibling naming conventions and provides the necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The description correctly focuses on the operation itself, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 action: 'Single-step one instruction, stepping OVER calls'. It uses a specific verb ('step-over') and resource (one instruction), and the parenthetical '(cdb 'p')' provides a familiar debugger command equivalent. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_step_in and windbg_step_out.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to step one instruction without diving into called functions. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of step_in', but the phrase 'stepping OVER calls' provides clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance beyond the implication.

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