debug_step_into

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the call 'blocks until step completes,' which is useful, but it does not mention that execution is resumed, that the debugger must be in a stopped state, or what state the session will be in after the step.

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 short, focused sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the blocking behavior is communicated efficiently.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple execution-control tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves some ambiguity about the expected result after completion and any prerequisites such as a paused debug session. It is not fully self-contained, though the schema covers the parameters and the sibling context clarifies the operation type.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both session_id and thread_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage, but it also does not provide any extra 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Step into function call.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug_step_over and debug_step_out, since 'step into' is the standard debugger concept for entering a function call.

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 when to use the tool via the phrase 'step into function call,' but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over debug_step_over or debug_step_out. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or alternative routing guidance.

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