debug_step

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait — it only applies to a halted core — plus the valid count range and the return payload (new PC, function name, source line). It stops short of saying whether breakpoints are honored during the step or what happens if the session is invalid.

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 operation is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Every line adds information — no restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the halted-core precondition is covered. Missing edge-case behavior (stepping over breakpoints, invalid or expired session) keeps it from being fully complete for a debugger mutation tool.

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 and it does: session_id is tied to its source tool (debug_session_start), and count is documented with its range (1-100) and default (1). Both parameters gain meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Single-step the halted core by N instructions', which is clearly distinct from debug_resume (free-run) and debug_halt. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, but the operation itself is 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 phrase 'halted core' implies the prerequisite that the target must already be stopped, but this is never stated as an explicit condition and no error behavior for a running core is given. Nothing routes the agent between this, debug_resume, and debug_breakpoint.

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