debug_step_over

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the important fact that the tool 'Blocks until step completes,' signaling synchronous behavior. It doesn't discuss error cases or the need for a paused thread, but the core behavioral characteristic is usefully disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no redundant content. The primary action is stated first, followed by the key behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action and blocking behavior. It could be slightly richer by noting when to choose this over step_into/step_out, but that gap is relatively minor given the conventional semantics and sibling names.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (session_id and thread_id), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it receives the baseline score.

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 and resource: 'Step over to the next line.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like debug_step_into and debug_step_out by naming the precise stepping action.

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 by its conventional debugging meaning, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over debug_step_into or debug_step_out, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond requiring a debug session.

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