control_execution

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explains the behavior of each action (e.g., step_over executes current line and pauses next, stop terminates session) and includes important notes like freeing ports after stop. This provides clear expectations of tool behavior.

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 well-structured with sections for ACTIONS (each with concise description, use case, example), REQUIRES, and AFTER STOP. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 there is no output schema and only one parameter, the description is complete. It covers all actions, prerequisites, and post-stop behavior. It also addresses potential errors implicitly by requiring paused state for stepping actions. No gaps are apparent.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. While the schema describes each enum value, the description provides use cases and examples (e.g., 'Skip framework internals' for step_over, 'Debug why UserService::create() fails' for step_into), enriching parameter understanding.

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 'Controls the debugger's execution flow. Use to step through code or end sessions.' It lists specific actions that distinguish it from sibling tools like start_debug_session, set_breakpoint, etc., making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance for each action (e.g., 'Use when: Line calls a function you don't need to debug.' for step_over) and states prerequisites (session must be active, paused for stepping/continue). It also advises to always stop sessions to free ports, covering both when and how to use the tool effectively.

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