get_stack_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a key requirement (active debugger) but does not state what happens if the debugger is not active, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but no details are provided.

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 clause adds value: the action and the essential prerequisite. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless 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?

The tool is simple (no params, output schema present), and the description covers its core function and the main prerequisite. It does not clarify differences from get_stack_frame or the scope of 'current' (e.g., current thread), but for a basic getter with an output schema, this is nearly complete. A small gap remains in differentiating from similar debugger tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers this aspect. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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+resource ('Get the current call stack trace') that clearly names the action and object. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stack_frame, which retrieves a single frame, and from other debugger control tools.

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 states a clear prerequisite ('Requires active debugger'), implying when to use it (after starting the debugger). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance partially implied.

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