step_into

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (stepping into functions or to next line), but does not disclose important traits such as whether it requires an active debugging session, what happens if no session exists, if it modifies state, or any error conditions. For a debugging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational context.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence defines the action and scope, and the second explains the effect. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (debugging step operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., session requirements, side effects) and return values. For a tool in a debugging suite with many siblings, more completeness would be beneficial to guide proper use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description does not mention parameters at all, but since there is only one parameter ('session_id') and schema coverage is complete, the description's focus on tool behavior without parameter details is acceptable. It loses a point for not reinforcing the parameter's role in the context of stepping.

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 specific action ('Step into') with precise scope ('next function call, or to the next line if not a function call') and explains what it does ('follows execution into called functions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'step_over' (which steps over functions) and 'step_out' (which steps out of functions) by emphasizing entry into function calls.

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 implies usage during debugging to trace execution flow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'step_over' or 'step_out'. It provides context about following into functions, which helps differentiate from 'step_over', but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or prerequisites for use.

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