windbg_call_stack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states a read-only operation ('Show'). It does not disclose behavior such as whether a thread must be selected, what happens with stale or invalid states, or how the stack is formatted. However, as a simple read operation, the implied behavior is straightforward, so it is minimally adequate.

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 with no redundant words. It fully conveys the core purpose in minimal space, achieving perfect conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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's low complexity, full schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for basic invocation. It clearly identifies the scope (current thread) and action. However, it could have added a note about when the call stack is meaningful (e.g., when the target is broken in), which prevents a perfect score.

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%: both 'mode' and 'count' have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies. The enum values for 'mode' are listed but their functional differences are not elaborated in the description either.

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 the specific verb 'Show' with the resource 'call stack of the current thread', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_thread_stacks (all threads) and windbg_stack_find_thread (thread discovery). The scope is explicit and matches the tool's name and purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., a paused process), exclusions, or comparisons to other stack-related tools. The sole sentence simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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