step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action parameter values but doesn't explain what 'over', 'into', and 'out' mean in terms of execution behavior. It doesn't describe whether this changes program state, what happens after stepping, or any side effects. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter constraints.

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 - just one sentence that states the purpose and enumerates the parameter values. There's zero wasted language, and the most critical information (the valid action values) is included. It's appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter control 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single parameter, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter constraints. However, for a debugging/execution control tool, it should ideally explain what the different step actions do and when each is appropriate, which would help the agent use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description provides the essential semantic information about the 'action' parameter - it lists the three valid values ('over', 'into', 'out'). While it doesn't explain what these values mean, it does provide the enumeration that's missing from the schema. For a single parameter tool, this gives adequate semantic guidance.

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 states the tool 'Controls execution when paused' which gives a vague purpose - it indicates a control function during paused execution but doesn't specify what resource or system is being controlled. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'pause_or_resume' or 'get_paused_info' which also relate to execution control. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what execution context is being stepped through.

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. It doesn't mention when stepping is appropriate versus using 'pause_or_resume' for different control needs, or when to use 'get_paused_info' for status checking instead. There's no context about prerequisites (must be paused first) or exclusions for when stepping isn't applicable.

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