edb_step_instruction

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies assembly-level instruction stepping and the count parameter. Annotations already mark it as not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent; the description confirms its mutating effect on execution state. No contradiction.

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?

Two efficient sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Front-loaded with core purpose, no filler.

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?

Cover the main behavior, parameter, and return value. Output schema exists to detail return structure. Lacks explicit mention of side effects on program state, but that's fundamental to stepping tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the 'count' parameter with type, default, and description, which fully covers the single parameter. The schema itself also had a description for count, but given 0% coverage signal, the description is essential and well-provided.

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 it steps a single CPU instruction, not a source line, and explicitly differentiates from edb_step_into which steps by source line. It also notes equivalence to EDB's action_Single_Step.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: for assembly-level stepping, and names the alternative (edb_step_into) for source line stepping. Does not cover all sibling stepping tools like edb_step_over or edb_step_out, but the differentiation from the most similar tool is clear.

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