debug_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clearly indicate that this tool advances (mutates) the debugged process's execution state and returns registers. However, it omits important behavioral context, such as the requirement for an active/paused debug session, the potential long-running effect when stepping over calls, and what happens at process exit.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action, includes the key behavioral choice (step into/over), and states the return value. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 stateful debugger operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It covers the main purpose and return value, but it does not explain prerequisites like an active paused session, the behavior when stepping over a call, or the structure of the returned register state. An agent familiar with debuggers can use it, but more context would reduce ambiguity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with useful descriptions (count, step_over, session_id), so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces the step_over meaning by saying 'step into or step over', but it does not provide any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'single-step the debugged process', with explicit step into/step over behavior and a defined return value (updated register state). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like debug_continue (run freely), debug_get_registers (read-only register access), and esil_step/rzil_step (emulation-based stepping).

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 states what the tool does but not when to choose it over alternatives such as debug_continue for continuous execution or the emulation stepping tools. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the debugger context; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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