step_out

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false and a title, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses that execution actually resumes, what comes back (the new call stack), and the 5-second timeout fallback. It omits what happens if the tool is invoked when not paused, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics, then the edge case, then the return behavior. No sentence is padding — each adds a distinct operational fact.

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 zero-parameter debugger operation with no output schema, the description covers precondition, edge-case behavior, return content, and timeout — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and nothing about invocation is left unclear.

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 precise verb and mechanism: run the rest of the current function and pause in its caller. That uniquely identifies step-out semantics, but it never names the sibling alternatives (step_over, step_into, resume_execution) so an agent must infer the contrast from the definition alone.

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 opening clause 'While paused' establishes the required debugger state, and the event-handler/timer caveat tells the agent what happens in the case where no caller exists. It stops short of explicit routing guidance — it never says to prefer step_over or step_into in particular situations.

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