edb_step_over

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

The description mentions that for a `call` instruction, the entire function runs then stops, and specifies the return JSON structure. However, it does not discuss side effects such as register or memory changes, or that the program counter advances, which is important for a debugger tool. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond what is implied.

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, consisting of two sentences and a return type line. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 and the presence of many step-related siblings, the description adequately explains the core behavior and return format. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., process must be paused), or the existence of the similar sibling 'edb_step_over_instruction', leaving some context gaps. The output schema covers return values, so that aspect is complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. According to guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline score of 4, and the description adds value by clarifying the operation and return type without needing parameter details.

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 treats calls as atomic, specifying the verb 'execute' and the resource 'machine instruction'. It distinguishes from siblings like step_into by noting atomic call handling, though there is a sibling 'edb_step_over_instruction' which could cause confusion but the description still clarifies the behavior.

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 by stating 'treating calls as atomic', suggesting it is appropriate when stepping over function calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like step_into, step_out, or step_over_instruction, and there is no exclusion or alternative naming.

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