Step debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and precondition, but does not mention that stepping advances execution, may have side effects, or what happens if the session is not paused. No error conditions or state changes are disclosed.

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, concise sentence of 8 words that front-loads the essential action. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain return values, failure modes, or the purpose of the optional targetSessionId parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently in a debugging flow.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description loosely maps to the 'direction' parameter by listing into/over/out, but it does not explain sessionId or the optional targetSessionId. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 specifies the action (step) with the exact directions (into, over, out) and the target (paused JavaScript frame). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_resume and debugger_run_to_location.

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 phrase 'from a paused JavaScript frame' clearly indicates the required context for using this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as resume or run-to-location, though these are implied by sibling names.

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