edb_step_over_instruction

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). Description adds context: stepping over calls (not into), equivalent to GDB's nexti. No contradictory statements. However, does not mention side effects like modification of execution state, which is appropriate for a stepping command.

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?

Very concise and well-structured: purpose sentence, GDB equivalence, differentiation, then Args/Returns. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists (returns str), so description need not detail return. Adequately explains behavior and differentiation. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., process must be running) but not necessary given typical debugger usage.

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?

Only one parameter (count). Schema already describes it as 'Number of instructions to step over' with default 1. Description repeats this information and adds structured formatting but no additional meaning. Schema coverage is high, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it steps over a single instruction at assembly level, skipping calls. Specifically compares to GDB's nexti and distinguishes from sibling tools edb_step_over (source line) and edb_step_instruction (step into calls).

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?

Explicitly differentiates when to use this tool vs alternatives (edb_step_over, edb_step_instruction) and from GDB's nexti. Provides clear context for stepping over calls at instruction level.

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