step_over

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the ~5s wait, the success-with-state="running" and pending:true outcome, the eventual transition to "paused", and the recovery paths (list_debug_sessions or pause_execution). It omits error/precondition behavior (e.g. what happens if the session is not paused or sessionId is invalid), keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first four words, and the subsequent clauses all earn their place by describing the non-obvious async semantics. The long em-dash clause is dense but not padded.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the critical operational nuance (pending/running state, recovery via pause_execution). Missing only precondition and failure-mode detail, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 0% for the single sessionId parameter, and the description never explains it. The indirect reference to list_debug_sessions hints at where a session ID comes from, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap with any format, origin, or validity detail.

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?

"Step over the current line" states a specific debugger verb and its target, and the term "step over" carries conventional meaning distinct from step_into/step_out. However, the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those sibling tools, so the differentiation rests on the reader's prior debugger knowledge rather than on the text.

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 explains what happens during execution but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the obvious alternatives (step_into, step_out, continue_execution). The mention of a long-running call is an example of the async behavior, not a selection criterion for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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