Step into

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real trait beyond the schema — that async calls are followed — but says nothing about what happens when the current line has no callable function, what error/return state results, or that the target must be paused.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the async caveat tucked into a parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter stepping command with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the one non-obvious behavioral fact (async following). The missing precondition about being paused is minor.

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 100% and the single wait_ms parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its bounds and the 'running' return case. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'step into the function called on the current line' states exactly what happens, and the parenthetical clarifies the async case. Against siblings like step_over and step_out, the verb alone unambiguously separates the three stepping modes.

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?

Usage is implied by the semantics of stepping into a call, but the description never states preconditions (the process must already be paused at a call site) or when to prefer step_over/step_out instead. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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