step_over

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the ~5s wait, the success-with-state-'running'/pending:true return on timeout, the fact that the step remains in effect, and the session transition to paused on completion. It omits prerequisites (e.g. session must be paused) and error behavior for invalid sessions.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the timeout caveat and recovery options. The parenthetical is dense but every part addresses a real agent decision; no filler.

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 one-parameter stepping tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main behavioral edge case (long-running step) and the resulting session states. It lacks only precondition and failure-mode information.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions sessionId. The single parameter is self-descriptive by name, which limits the harm, but the description adds no meaning beyond the 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 specific verb and resource ('Step over the current line'), which an agent can map to standard debugger semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like step_into or step_out, so the key distinction (not entering function calls) is left implicit.

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 debugger stepping context, and it names wait_for_stop and pause_execution as alternatives when a step is pending. It does not say when to choose step_over over step_into, step_out, or continue_execution, nor what session state is required.

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