gdb_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Step program execution' implies a mutation (changing execution state) but doesn't specify effects like whether it steps into functions, handles breakpoints, or requires a paused session. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a debugging tool.

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 with 'Step program execution'—a single, front-loaded phrase that directly states the action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity of debugging tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'step' entails, how it differs from siblings, what the output might be, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'sessionId' (required GDB session ID) and 'instructions' (optional boolean to step by instructions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding value.

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 'Step program execution' states a clear verb ('step') and resource ('program execution'), but it's vague about what 'step' means in this debugging context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'gdb_next' (which likely steps over functions) or 'gdb_continue' (which resumes full execution), leaving ambiguity about its specific behavior.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gdb_next', 'gdb_continue', and 'gdb_finish' that are related to execution control, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for 'gdb_step', making it unclear when an agent should select it.

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