step_into

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

No annotations beyond the title are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns the new call stack position, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects like changing debugger state explicitly, nor prerequisites like a paused debugger, leaving some behavioral details implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the return value. Every word is necessary; no filler or redundancy. Perfectly concise.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an output described in the text, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be paused) and potential error conditions, but these are reasonably inferred from the sibling context and debugger domain.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. No further elaboration is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('step into') and resource ('the function call on the current line'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like step_over and step_out. The purpose is immediately obvious and 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 description implies its usage (to enter a function call) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like step_over or step_out. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it functionally clear but with implied guidance only.

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