roku_debug_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists step types. It does not disclose that stepping executes code, may require an active debugging session, or that it affects program state. The description is purely nominal and lacks 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?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It conveys the core operation and parameter values without waste, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a debugger step command, but the description lacks essential context: when it is valid to call (e.g., only while paused), the meaning of thread_index, and how stepping interacts with breakpoints or program state. With no annotations and minimal description, an agent would struggle to know how to use it correctly in a debugger workflow.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'step' parameter by enumerating valid values ('over', 'out', 'into'), which is valuable since the schema has no per-parameter descriptions. However, 'thread_index' is not explained at all, and the format/effect of the step parameter is not elaborated beyond the enum-like list.

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 clearly states this is a 'step' operation in a debugger context, with allowed values ('over', 'out', 'into'). The verb 'step' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling debug tools like 'continue' or 'stop', though it does not explicitly mention the debuggee resource.

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 such as continue, stop, or breakpoint commands. There is no mention of prerequisites like being in a paused state, nor any exclusions or conditions that would select this tool over others.

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