step_over

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

The description fully covers the tool's behavior: it executes the line, pauses next, and avoids entering function calls. It also states the return value. Without annotations, this adequately informs the agent of the tool's actions and side effects.

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 focused sentences: first states the action and constraint, second states the return. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool does, its key behavioral trait (no function entry), and its return value. Nothing essential is missing for a simple step-over debugger command.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to elaborate. The schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description adds value by clarifying the tool's function rather than parameters.

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 action ('execute the current line'), the scope ('does not enter function calls'), and the outcome ('pause at the next line', 'returns the new call stack position'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like step_into (enters functions).

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 the primary use case (stepping over function calls without entering), but does not explicitly compare to step_into or step_out. The sibling names provide context, but a brief 'Use when you want to skip over a function' would improve clarity.

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