edb_step_into

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool executes a single instruction and enters function calls on a 'call' instruction. It also discloses the return format (JSON with address, function, file, line). Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which this aligns with.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the action and one line for the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary 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 tool with zero parameters and an output schema that explains the return, the description is complete. It covers the action, the special case of call instructions, and the return format.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description correctly does not need to add parameter details, earning the baseline score of 4.

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 executes one machine instruction and steps into function calls, distinguishing it from step-over/out tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `edb_step_instruction`, which might be similar but without function call entry.

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 usage when the current instruction is a call and one wants to enter the called function, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools like `edb_step_over` or `edb_step_out`.

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