Dbg Callstack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the 'active debugger' prerequisite. It does not state that the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get'), nor rate limits, error behavior when no debugger is attached, or what happens on timeout/instance_id overrides.

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?

One terse sentence with the resource front-loaded and the critical precondition in parentheses. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should sketch the return shape (frames, addresses, symbols), but it does not. Combined with zero annotations, the definition is thin for an agent that must decide whether the returned data is usable without further calls.

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%, with 'timeout' and 'instance_id' fully documented inline, so the schema handles parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about these two optional parameters, which is acceptable under the high-coverage 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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('current call stack'), which readily separates it from static-analysis siblings like stack_frame or get_function_signature. It stops short of naming any sibling or clarifying that this is a live-debugger view rather than a static stack frame.

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 parenthetical 'requires active debugger' gives an important precondition for use, which is real guidance. However, it never contrasts this with dbg_regs, stack_frame, or dbg_status, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice among debugger tools.

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