step_over

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing side effects ('advances debugger execution state'), prerequisites ('requires an active, paused debugger session'), and return behavior ('confirmation of step execution'). It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure flows logically from what it does to how to use it.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent context about operation, prerequisites, alternatives, and use cases. It could potentially mention what happens if no debugger session exists or error scenarios, but covers the essential debugging context thoroughly.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's operation and context.

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 the specific action ('Executes the current line of code without entering function calls') and resource ('debugger execution state'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'resume' and 'evaluate_on_call_frame'. It precisely defines what the tool does in debugging contexts.

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 states when to use ('Use this to skip function internals during debugging'), when not to use (implied by alternatives), and names specific alternatives ('resume', 'evaluate_on_call_frame'). Provides clear context about debugger session requirements and comparison with other stepping approaches.

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