step

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool automatically pauses a running target before stepping. It also describes the return value (steps executed and new PC). This is good transparency for a step operation, though it could mention if any side effects occur.

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 very concise: two lines for behavior, then Args and Returns in a structured format. No wasted words. Key information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the behavior, auto-pause logic, and return value. It is complete for typical use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The 'count' parameter is clearly described with default and purpose (number of steps). This adds significant value beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it performs instruction-level single stepping, distinguishing it from source-level stepping. The verb 'step' is specific and the resource is implicit (CPU execution). Sibling tools like 'run' and 'halt' are different operations.

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 mentions auto-pause if target is running, which provides context for use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'run' or 'halt'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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