Step the selected stopped thread at source or instruction level to advance execution and return a new stop, exit, or timeout.
Step the selected stopped thread at source/instruction level. Returns a new stop, exit or timeout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | over | |
| timeout | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| expected_run_gen | No | ||
| expected_stop_count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the outcome set (new stop / exit / timeout) and the stopped-and-selected precondition, but says nothing about how stepping interacts with breakpoints or what happens on timeout.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the precondition and outcome come before anything else. Slightly under-sized for the parameter complexity, but that is a completeness issue, not a verbosity one.
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 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves an agent unable to choose the correct 'kind' value or populate the run-gen/stop-count guards. An output schema covers the return payload, but the input side is essentially undocumented.
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 coverage is 0% for 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does not: the 'kind' enum values (into/over/out vs into_instruction/over_instruction) are only hinted at by 'source/instruction level', and 'timeout', 'expected_run_gen' and 'expected_stop_count' (apparently optimistic-concurrency guards) are never explained.
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 (step) against a specific resource (the selected stopped thread) and names the granularity (source/instruction level). It is distinguishable from rad_continue / rad_run_to_line, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the precondition 'selected stopped thread', but the description never says when to step versus continue, pause, or run-to-line, and lists no exclusions or alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.