pwndbg_stepuntilasm

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it mentions single-stepping, potential slowness, and a default 60s timeout. However, it does not clarify what happens on timeout (e.g., error or break) or other side effects like state changes. The source and category are provided but add limited behavioral insight.

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 reasonably concise, front-loading the purpose and then providing parameter details and a link. The inclusion of source path and category is marginally redundant but not excessive. It earns its space.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description adequately covers the input semantics. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable due to the output schema. The link to documentation adds completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter in the Args section (session_id as UUID, mnemonic as instruction mnemonic, op_str as optional operand, timeout as max seconds). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type and name information.

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 steps until a specific assembly instruction is reached, using a specific verb and resource. It provides examples of mnemonic matches (syscall, call, mov), making the purpose precise and distinguishable among numerous sibling 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 usage context (e.g., for matching instructions by mnemonic, optional operand, and timeout) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pwndbg_stepsyscall or pwndbg_stepover. No when-not-to-use criteria are given.

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