pwndbg_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains core behavior (step over, no call entry) and parameter effects (instructions toggle). However, it does not disclose execution continuation or potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 very concise: two sentences for purpose and two lines for arguments. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 complexity (debugger stepping), the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and key constraint (no call entry). It omits explicit mention of program continuation but is largely sufficient. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds critical meaning: it identifies session_id as UUID and explains that instructions defaults to false meaning step over source line, true means step over machine instruction. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 'step over' and the resource 'next source line or instruction', and explicitly notes it does not enter calls. This distinguishes it from siblings like pwndbg_step (which enters calls) and other stepping tools.

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 (when you want to step over calls) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given many sibling stepping tools, explicit comparisons would help.

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