step_to_prev_hit

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 only states 'navigate backward', but fails to disclose behavioral effects such as whether it modifies execution state, requires an active debugging session, or affects other views. This is insufficient for a reverse debugging tool.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 the complexity of reverse debugging and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain prerequisites, side effects, or how the tool fits into the debugging workflow among many siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes defaults for file and line. The description adds minimal value by repeating 'or a specified line', which is already implied by the parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (navigate backward) and the target (previous execution of a specified or current line). It explicitly indicates reverse debugging, distinguishing it from the forward sibling 'step_to_next_hit'.

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 includes 'Useful for reverse debugging' as a usage hint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'step_to_next_hit' or 'goto', nor does it provide exclusions.

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