DebugStepOut

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them — that the step executes without blocking the MCP HTTP server — but omits prerequisites such as whether the debuggee must be paused at a breakpoint.

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?

Two short lines, with the action statement front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Returns: Command execution result' is slightly boilerplate but harmless.

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 simple no-param debugger action this is close to adequate, but it omits the state precondition (debugger must be paused; a step-out from the bottom of the stack may not be valid) and the return value is described only as the generic 'Command execution result' with no output schema to fill the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The empty schema imposes no undocumented burden on the description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Step out of the current function,' which is a precise debugger action an agent can distinguish from DebugStepIn/DebugStepOver by name alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the debug sibling set, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus DebugStepIn, DebugStepOver, or DebugRun. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the context.

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