get_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading stack entries and resolving values against symbols, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important context (symbol resolution), and the Args section efficiently details parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, though the Args formatting could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a tool in a debugging context with many siblings, more context would help the agent use it correctly without trial and error.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: session_id is implied as required for session identification, and count specifies default (16) and max (256) values, which aren't in the schema. This effectively documents key semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain session_id's format or source.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Read stack entries from the current stack pointer. Resolves values against registered symbols.' This specifies the verb ('Read'), resource ('stack entries'), and scope ('current stack pointer'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_registers or read_memory. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like get_trace or diff_trace that might involve stack data, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active emulator session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_registers or read_memory. The only implicit context is the session_id parameter, but this doesn't constitute explicit usage guidelines.

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