step_over

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, yet it says nothing about side effects, required session state, or what happens to execution flow. The abbreviation 'dso' adds no actionable behavioral context. This is a complete gap for a debugger control command.

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 two-word fragment followed by a cryptic abbreviation. It is not a sentence, is not front-loaded with useful information, and fails to earn its place because it conveys no meaningful content. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not 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 presence of sibling tools like step_into and continue_execution, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to select this tool correctly. It omits any usage context, parameter guidance, or behavioral details. The existence of an output schema does not offset these missing selection cues.

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?

There is one parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it at all. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. An agent gets no guidance on what the parameter means or when to supply it.

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 restates the tool name ('Step over') and adds only an unclear abbreviation ('dso'). It does not specify what stepping over does or distinguish it from the sibling step_into. This is effectively a tautology.

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?

There is no indication of when to use step_over versus step_into, continue_execution, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, no context, and no exclusions are provided. The agent is left to infer entirely from the name.

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