debuggerStep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does without any side effects, requirements, or return behavior. It does not mention that stepping modifies debugger state, requires an active session, or what happens with invalid steptype values. This is severely insufficient.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it is under-specified, but that under-specification is penalized in other dimensions, not here. For conciseness alone, it earns a 4.

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?

This is a debugger mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description. It provides no information about valid steptype values, prerequisites, return values, or operation side effects. Given the complexity of debugger interactions and the presence of many sibling debugger tools, this description is completely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of both parameters, each with at least a basic description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema; the steptype description remains vague ('The type of step to perform') and the url description gives some context for specific step types, but the overall meaning is not enhanced beyond the schema.

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 'Performs a debugger step' names a verb and resource, but 'step' is vague and does not clarify whether it means step into, over, or out, nor does it distinguish this from sibling debugger tools like debuggerGoToStack or debuggerSetVariableValue. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many debugger sibling tools. The description does not state when it should be invoked, mention prerequisites like an active debugger session, or explain how it relates to other stepping/stack operations. This is a clear gap.

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