step_and_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions stepping and collecting traces but fails to state that the tool advances the debug session (mutation), does not describe the return format of traces, and omits prerequisites like having an active debug session.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key options. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the main functionality but lacks details about return structure, error handling, and state mutation. The description is adequate for basic use but has notable gaps.

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?

All five parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance semantics.

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 tool steps through code N times while collecting variables, distinguishing it from sibling single-step tools (step_in, step_out, step_over). It also clarifies the two output modes: returning traces or writing to file.

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 mentions 'useful for tracing execution flow' but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives like step_in, step_out, or step_over. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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