step

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the return of the new program counter but omits important behavioral traits such as the tool's side effect of advancing execution by one instruction or any required state (e.g., halted target). This is insufficient for a debugger operation.

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, direct sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and output.

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?

The description adequately explains the basic action and return value, and the presence of an output schema covers the return format. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted) and does not clarify whether the tool modifies state, which is important for a debugger tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Single-step one instruction') and the return value ('return the new program counter'). It is specific about the verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'resume', 'halt', or 'reset'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the target must be halted) or when stepping is appropriate compared to other debugger actions.

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