debuggerStep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Performs a debugger step' fails to describe any behavioral traits—it does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, its side effects, permissions required, or expected outcomes. For a tool likely involved in debugging execution, this lack of transparency is a significant gap, leaving the agent unaware of critical operational details.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Performs a debugger step.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-informative, it scores high on conciseness as every word contributes directly to stating the tool's action without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (involving debugging steps), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a debugger step does, the types of steps available, or the return values. With 100% schema coverage for inputs but no behavioral context, the description fails to provide enough information for the agent to understand the tool's full purpose and usage in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (steptype and url). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, even without parameter info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Performs a debugger step' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'debuggerStep' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'performs' and resource 'debugger step', but lacks details on what a debugger step entails or how it differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach or debuggerSetBreakpoints. This minimal statement provides little differentiation or clarity beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when debugging is active or what step types are available. With multiple sibling debugger tools (e.g., debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on selecting this tool appropriately.

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