step_into

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the ~5s wait, the possibility of returning success while still executing, the 'running' state plus pending:true, and the later transition to 'paused'. It also points to wait_for_stop for blocking behavior — rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then explains the timeout/state behavior. It's information-packed without waste, though the parenthetical about wait_for_stop is slightly cramped.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition covers the essential async semantics an agent needs to call and interpret the result. It stops short of describing error conditions or the full returned payload, but the critical behavior is present.

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 coverage is 0% and the single sessionId parameter is never mentioned in the description. Because the parameter is self-explanatory in context, the cost is small, but the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 concrete debugging action ('Step into the current call') with a specific verb and resource. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like step_over and step_out by standard debugger semantics, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of step-into, and it does name wait_for_stop as the follow-up to block until the step completes. However, it never states when to choose step_into over step_over/step_out, leaving that inference to the agent.

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