get_call_stack

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

The description indicates a read operation and specifies the returned data (call stack with local variables), but it does not disclose what happens if the game is not paused, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short of fully 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 a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It earns its place perfectly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and context but lacks details about the output format or structure of the call stack. An agent might need to infer the data shape, making it moderately complete but not fully satisfactory.

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, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine.

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 clearly states it retrieves the call stack with local variables during a paused breakpoint. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('call stack'), and the context ('when the game is paused at a breakpoint') distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_breakpoints' or 'step_into'.

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 implicitly restricts usage to when the game is paused at a breakpoint, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving some room for improvement.

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