Debug step over

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'step over' but does not explain side effects, such as advancing the program counter, requiring an active debug session, or that the thread must be paused. No mention of return values or state changes. The 'DAP escape hatch' label adds little behavioral clarity.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' is somewhat redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and free of fluff. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 low-level debugging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the context is insufficient. It does not mention when this can be invoked (e.g., only during an active debug session or while a thread is paused), nor what the result or side effects are. Given the richness of sibling debug tools, more operational context is needed to guide correct usage.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters deployment_id or thread_id. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds zero value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage. An ideal description would explain the role of each parameter in the stepping operation.

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 over one paused thread' in a 'deployment debug runtime'. This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like debug_step_in and debug_step_out. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does.

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 phrase 'Low-level DAP escape hatch' hints at advanced usage but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_step_in, debug_step_out, or debug_continue. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g., thread must be paused) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context without sufficient direction.

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