get_stack_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description correctly indicates this is a read-only introspection tool (getting layout info), which aligns with the non-destructive nature of similar tools. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or return format details, but given that an output schema exists (has_output_schema: true), the return structure is documented elsewhere. The description provides adequate high-level behavioral context for a frame layout tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and specifics. Every word adds value: 'complete stack frame layout' sets scope, 'all stack variables, their offsets, sizes, and the overall frame geometry' enumerates return contents. There is zero fluff or redundancy.

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 only one parameter, no annotations, zero schema coverage, an output schema present, and moderate complexity, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what data it provides, which is sufficient for proper invocation. The existence of sibling tools like get_local_variables suggests a different scope, and the description clearly differentiates by mentioning 'offsets, sizes, and frame geometry' that are unique to stack frame analysis. No gaps remain for effective use.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no description for the single parameter. The description compensates by clearly defining the tool's purpose and what it returns, but it does not explicitly describe what the 'identifier' parameter means (e.g., function name, address, or symbol). However, given the context of sibling tools and the parameter name 'identifier', its meaning is reasonably inferable. The description adds value beyond the bare schema, but a brief note on identifier format would make it a 5.

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 the tool retrieves the "complete stack frame layout of a function" and specifies the exact details returned: "all stack variables, their offsets, sizes, and the overall frame geometry." This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_local_variables (which likely returns variable names/types without layout details) and get_function_info (which covers broader function metadata).

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 the tool is for analyzing stack frame structure, which is most useful when a function has been identified and its stack layout is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_local_variables or get_function_info, nor does it provide any prerequisites (e.g., function must be defined, or identifier must be a function name/address). The usage context is clear but no exclusions or comparison to siblings are given.

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