pwndbg_stepover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions setting a breakpoint and continuing, plus a timeout, but does not describe side effects, required process state, or what happens on failure. For a debugging tool, more transparency is needed.

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 well-structured with a one-liner, metadata, and argument list. It is concise and to the point, though the metadata lines (source, category, URL) add useful context without being overly verbose.

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 covers the tool's purpose and parameters. However, given the complexity of debugging and the large number of sibling tools, it lacks contextual guidance on which step/next tool to choose. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly explains each parameter (session_id, addr, timeout) and their defaults, but lacks details on addr format (e.g., hex?) and timeout units (though seconds are implied). More precise semantics would improve usability.

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 it sets a breakpoint on the next instruction and continues, and specifies it's an instruction-level step-over. This distinguishes it from step-into tools like pwndbg_step, but among many step/next siblings (e.g., pwndbg_nextcall, pwndbg_nextjmp), the distinction could be sharper.

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 usage context is implied (enhanced step-over), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many alternative step/next tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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