debuggerStackTrace

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

The description confirms the read-only nature via 'call stack' and adds the prerequisite of an attached session. This is useful context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, aligning with them. However, it does not describe behavior on failure (e.g., no active breakpoint) or the return format, so it is only partially transparent.

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 only two sentences with exact, front-loaded information. It covers purpose, prerequisite, and alternative without redundancy. No unnecessary 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?

The description explains what the tool returns (the call stack with programs, methods, and line numbers), the requirement (attached session), and the alternative for further inspection. For a simple read-only, single-parameter tool, this is nearly complete. Minor absence of output format details is offset by the intuitive nature of a stack trace.

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 single parameter semanticURIs is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add more. It does not mention the parameter, which is fine given schema coverage; the baseline score 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?

The description states a clear verb, resource, and context: the call stack of the process stopped at a breakpoint. It explicitly contrasts with debuggerGoToStack, distinguishing itself as the stack listing tool. The agent knows exactly what to expect and how it differs from siblings.

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 explicitly states the required precondition (attached session/debuggerAttach) and names the alternative for inspecting variables (debuggerGoToStack). This gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, exceeding the minimum threshold.

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