dbgprobe.step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool advances by one instruction, requires a halted target, and returns PC and stop reason. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether breakpoints are temporarily disabled) and doesn't explain the format or range of stop reasons.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, precondition, and return value. It could be improved by explaining what 'stop reason' encompasses and potential errors, but it is adequate for an experienced debugger user.

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 schema has one parameter (session_id) with no description. The tool description does not explain what session_id represents or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify the parameter's purpose.

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 the action ('Single-step one instruction'), specifies the precondition ('Target must be halted first'), and indicates the outputs ('Returns the new PC and stop reason'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like dbgprobe.go (which runs continuously) and dbgprobe.halt (which stops execution).

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 explicitly states the condition for use ('Target must be halted first'), which serves as a when-to-use guideline. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context makes it clear that stepping is for single instruction advancement only.

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