Step Debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it 'mutates the state of the debuggee' (indicating a write operation), specifies a prerequisite ('established debugging connection which is currently paused'), and mentions a timeout behavior ('wait up to 3 seconds for it to pause again'). This covers critical aspects like mutation, preconditions, and timing, though it doesn't address potential errors or side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding crucial behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (mutating debuggee state with timing constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects like purpose, prerequisites, and behavior. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful for a mutation tool with no structured output documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete documentation for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'thread_id' usage further or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('controls execution flow', 'resume, step over, step into, or step out') and identifies the resource ('debuggee'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect_dap', 'disconnect_dap', and 'evaluate_expression' by focusing on execution control rather than connection management or expression evaluation.

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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool ('Requires an established debugging connection which is currently paused'), which clearly differentiates it from tools like 'connect_dap' or 'initialize_session'. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for similar actions, such as how 'run_tests' might relate to execution flow.

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