step_into

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the basic action and a follow-up step, but fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., what if not at a function call, changes to call stack, or error conditions). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentences convey the core action and a useful follow-up. No extraneous words; highly efficient.

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 debugger step-into tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on behavior in borderline cases (e.g., no callable function), prerequisites beyond 'paused', and expected outcome. More context is needed for reliable usage.

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, fully documenting both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 the action: stepping into a function call while paused. It is specific to the 'step_into' operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like step_over or step_out, leaving distinction to the name alone.

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 implies usage only while paused, which provides context, but it does not specify when NOT to use the tool or mention alternatives. The suggestion to use get_paused_state afterward is helpful but partial.

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