step_over

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose side effects ('advances debugger execution state'), prerequisites ('requires an active, paused debugger session'), and return value. However, the internal contradiction in the alternatives line undermines the clarity of the behavioral contract.

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 front-loaded and has a logical structure (action, side effects, prerequisites, returns, usage). The alternatives sentence is clunky and contains an error, which makes the text less clean than it could be.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, return type, and use case, which is mostly sufficient for a simple debugging action. But the contradictory alternative guidance leaves unresolved ambiguity about when and how to select this tool versus a step-into operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema sufficiently documents tab_id and instance_id. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per baseline it does not need to.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool's action: executing the current line without entering function calls and pausing at the next line. However, the later alternatives line says 'step_over enters functions', which introduces confusion and slightly blurs the primary definition.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to skip function internals' and names resume and evaluate_on_call_frame as alternatives. But it also lists 'step_over' as an alternative that 'enters functions', which is both not an alternative and contradicts the tool's own behavior, potentially misleading an agent about tool selection.

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