step

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'halt again' after execution, implying a state change, but omits prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted first), side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without wasted words. It could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, but it achieves the goal of brevity.

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 debugger step operation, the description is too sparse. It lacks prerequisites (halted state), output format, and common usage context. Even with an output schema (not shown), the description should provide enough guidance for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 no parameters, and coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it could add context about implicit inputs (like the currently selected core). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate given the absence of parameters.

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 verb 'execute' and the resource 'a single instruction', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'halt', 'resume', and 'step' is the only step-into tool. However, it could clarify the scope (e.g., 'instruction' vs 'source line') for more precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted) or typical workflow context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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