Debug step out

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions operating on a paused thread but omits side effects (e.g., resuming execution until function return), error conditions, or required runtime state. The 'escape hatch' hint is the only additional behavioral context, which is vague.

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, front-loaded with the key action ('step out') and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is too sparse given no annotations and no output schema. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (paused thread), behavioral effects (stepping out resumes execution), and parameter semantics. Sibling tools like debug_step_in likely have similar brevity, but this tool still needs more context to be safely used.

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%, and the description does not define either parameter. It provides minimal context by referencing 'deployment debug runtime' and 'paused thread', implying deployment_id and thread_id, but fails to explain their formats, roles, or relationships. The description adds little value over the bare parameter names.

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 action ('step out') and the resource ('one paused thread in a deployment debug runtime'), which distinguishes it from sibling stepping tools like debug_step_in and debug_step_over. The phrase 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' adds specificity about the intended use.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description labels it as a 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' but does not contrast it with alternatives, explain prerequisites (e.g., thread must be paused), or indicate scenarios where stepping out is preferred over stepping over or in.

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