debuggerGoToStack

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description clarifies a key behavioral nuance: this changes only the viewed frame, not the suspension point. This prevents a common misconception and adds real value about the tool's effect.

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?

Two short sentences, tightly written. The primary purpose is front-loadedeb8 and the clarifying contrast ('changes the view, not the position') is concise and valuable. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the behavioral essentials. It explains the purpose, the effect on debuggerVariables, and what it does not do, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as 'The URL or position of the stack entry.' The description adds that it refers to a stack frame but does not provide additional format or resolution details. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('the debugger view to another frame of the stack') and clearly connects it to the observable effect on debuggerVariables. It also distinguishes the operation from changing the program position, which separates it from debuggerStep and similar 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 clearly implies when to use it: when a user wants debuggerVariables to reflect another stack frame. It also implicitly warns against expecting the program position to change impossible in a debugger context. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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