step_over

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the tool waits for the next stop, implying the debugger pauses. Given the annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a safe, non-side-effecting operation, the description effectively communicates the core behavior without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action and result efficiently, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 tool is a simple primitive with no parameters, and the description covers the essential action and expected behavior. The presence of an output schema and sibling tools provides sufficient context; the description is complete for its simplicity.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 uses the specific verb 'step over' with the resource 'current line' and states the outcome ('wait for the next stop'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like step_into and step_out, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the action is for stepping over a line during debugging, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like step_into or step_out. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only the implied usage from the verb.

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