pwndbg_stepret

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

The description discloses that the tool single-steps through every instruction until a return, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether it affects program state or requires certain permissions). The timeout parameter is mentioned but no details on what happens if timed out.

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 clear summary, source, category, comparison, and argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While not extremely concise, it earns its length by providing differentiating information and parameter docs.

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 covers the essential behavior, parameter roles, and differentiation from a sibling. With an output schema present, the lack of return value details is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this debugging 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?

Although the JSON schema has 0% coverage, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains both session_id and timeout, adding meaning beyond the schema (default value and purpose). The description does not repeat schema details but provides useful context.

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 tool steps to the next return instruction by single-stepping until a ret is found. It differentiates from the sibling tool pwndbg_nextret by noting the different mechanism (single-step vs breakpoint), and provides a category for context.

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 explains when to use this tool versus pwndbg_nextret, which is a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other step commands (e.g., pwndbg_step) or provide broader usage context, but the comparison is helpful.

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