step_over

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 discloses the key behavioral trait of executing function calls without stepping into them, which is essential for debugging. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., requires an active debug session), side effects, or error conditions.

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 that are front-loaded and zero-waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 a debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core action. It lacks information on return values, error handling, and session requirements, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective 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% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on tool behavior rather than repeating schema information, maintaining a baseline of 3 but earning a 4 due to efficient omission of redundant details.

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 over to the next line') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'step_into' and 'step_out' by explaining that function calls are executed but not stepped into. It precisely defines the verb and scope without being tautological.

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 when to use this tool by contrasting it with 'step_into' (function calls are not stepped into), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context for its use in debugging scenarios without naming specific sibling tools.

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