editor_debug_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose preconditions (e.g., debugger must be paused), side effects (execution state changes, potential entry into a function), or error behavior when no debug session is active.

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 six words and contains zero redundancy: a clear verb, object, and context. Every word earns its place and the core action is front-loaded, making it an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter debugger control tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks essential context for correct invocation, such as the requirement that a debug session be active and paused, making it incomplete in a debugging workflow context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The empty schema is fully covered, and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('step into') and resource ('next line in debugger'), clearly identifying the action as a debugger stepping operation. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling editor_debug_step_over through standard debugger terminology, but does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like step-over, continue, or break. The description does not mention prerequisites such as an active or paused debug session, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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