DebugStepOver

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are already covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: the call is non-blocking ('without blocking the MCP HTTP server'). It still omits the paused-state precondition and any error behavior if the debuggee is running.

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, front-loaded with the action and the caveat; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Returns: Command execution result' is close to boilerplate, but it is brief and does signal that a result comes back.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the result, and 'Command execution result' is too vague to tell the agent what a step-over yields (new instruction pointer, stop reason, error when not paused). Combined with the missing paused-state prerequisite in a large debugger sibling set, this leaves important gaps for a stepping command.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; the empty schema leaves nothing that the description needs to disambiguate. There is no parameter behavior for the description to add or omit.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Step over the next instruction'), and 'step over' is a term of art that implicitly differs from DebugStepIn and DebugStepOut. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings, so the agent must rely on prior debugger knowledge to pick correctly among the three stepping tools.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions relative to DebugStepIn, DebugStepOut, DebugRun, or DebugPause. It also omits the prerequisite that the debuggee must already be paused, and does not tell the agent to follow up with WaitForPause to observe the step completing.

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