keil_step_over

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the call does not perform a step and returns an explicit unsupported result rather than silently succeeding. It does not clarify whether that result arrives as a normal return or an error condition, and says nothing about how timeout_s interacts with a no-op call.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the most important fact, that the feature is not implemented, followed by the resulting behavior. There is no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 stub tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains why the tool is inert and what it returns. The remaining shortfall is the absence of a pointer to the working step tool, which would let an agent recover without scanning the sibling list.

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 single parameter timeout_s has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes no meaning and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The gap is low-stakes because the operation is unsupported, but the description still adds nothing beyond the bare schema type and default.

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 states precisely what the tool does: source-level step over is not implemented and the call returns an explicit unsupported result. That is a specific, unambiguous purpose rather than a tautology of the name. It stops short of a 5 because it does not name the working alternative (keil_step_instruction) that an agent would reach for instead.

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?

By declaring the operation unsupported, the description implicitly tells the agent not to rely on this tool for stepping, which is useful negative guidance. However, it never states what to use instead, despite keil_step_instruction and keil_step_out being present as siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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