debugger_step

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates execution state, and the description's 'step' is consistent with that (no contradiction). But the description omits the critical behaviors: stepping resumes the thread, invalidates the supplied stop token/generation, and blocks until the next stop or timeout.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and has zero waste, but it is undersized for a 5-parameter, 4-required mutation tool — brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the tool has complex required inputs (nested StopToken, ThreadRef) and blocking behavior that the description never covers. An agent could not infer the stop-token expiry rule or the timeout semantics from the definition alone.

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 description coverage is reported as 0% at the top level, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It only maps loosely to the 'kind' enum and the 'thread' argument, saying nothing about session_id, the stop token's generation/expiry semantics, or the timeout.

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 (step) with its three modes (over, into, out) and the scope ('one stopped thread'), which cleanly separates it from debugger_continue and debugger_pause. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the resource/action is unambiguous.

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?

'in one stopped thread' implicitly conveys the precondition that the target must already be halted, which is useful selection context. However, it never states when to step versus resume with debugger_continue, nor what happens if the thread is running.

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