debug_step_out

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful trait—the call blocks until step completes—but says nothing about prerequisites such as active session or paused thread, error behavior, or side effects. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word either defines the operation or communicates an important behavioral characteristic.

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 tool is simple and its parameters are fully documented, making the description plus schema mostly workable. However, with no output schema and no explicit guidance about when to choose step-out over step-over or step-into, the agent is left to infer some 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents session_id and thread_id clearly, including the 'uses stopped thread if not specified' behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, matching 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?

States a specific verb ('Step out') and resource ('current function'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. This is sufficient to distinguish it from siblings such as debug_step_over and debug_step_into.

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 usage context is implied by the operation name: use it when the debugger is stopped in a function and you want to resume at the caller. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so selection guidance is only implicit.

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