debuggerStep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'performs a debugger step' without explaining what this operation does (e.g., advances execution, changes state), its effects (e.g., modifies debugger session, may pause/resume), or any constraints (e.g., requires an active debug session, may have side effects). This lack of detail is inadequate for a tool likely involving mutation or state change in debugging.

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.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal, meeting the criteria for top marks in conciseness.

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 complexity of a debugger step operation (likely involving state changes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output, or integration with sibling debugger tools. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, making this description insufficient for the tool's likely purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema: 'steptype' (required, type of step) and 'url' (optional, for specific step types). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details 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 specificity about what a debugger step entails or how it differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach or debuggerSetBreakpoints. This minimal description fails to distinguish the tool's unique function within the debugging context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for its use. Given multiple sibling debugger tools (e.g., debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints, debuggerVariables), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on selecting this specific tool for stepping operations.

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