go_return

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the basic behavior and return value, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., does it modify breakpoints?), permissions needed, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., no return statement). Adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences plus a return note), front-loads the key behavior, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and return type. However, it could elaborate on what 'State' includes (e.g., registers, locals) to fully cover the output schema context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. As per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information since none exist, which is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Run to the last instruction of the current function') and the resource ('the current function'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool go_up by noting it stops inside the function. No ambiguity.

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?

Description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to reach the return point inside the function) and mentions the alternative go_up. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide exclusions for other sibling tools like go_till or run_to_line.

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