Debug step in

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior. It provides meaningful context: it's a low-level DAP escape hatch, requires a paused thread, and targets a specific deployment debug runtime. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., advancing execution), prerequisites like an active debug session, or error behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the most important qualifier ('Low-level DAP escape hatch') and then states the action and scope. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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 lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not mention prerequisites like an existing debug session, how the step interacts with the broader debug flow, or what the outcome/return indicates. Given the complexity of the debug tool context, the description is incomplete.

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 indirectly explains deployment_id and thread_id via 'deployment debug runtime' and 'one paused thread', but it does not detail how to obtain or validate these values, nor explain the integer format of thread_id. The names are relatively self-explanatory, but the description adds only minimal semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('step into') and identifies a clear resource ('one paused thread in a deployment debug runtime'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like debug_step_over and debug_step_out by explicitly focusing on stepping into a thread, and the 'low-level DAP escape hatch' framing adds specificity.

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 when you need to step into a paused thread during debugging, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., debug_step_over, debug_step_out) or exclude cases. The 'low-level escape hatch' hint gives some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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