dolphin_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does hint at conditional data ('when available'), but says nothing about whether the debug target must be halted, whether the call is cheap or blocking, or how levels/startFrame affect the returned depth.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core operation leads and the supplementary detail follows. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the definition leaves an agent guessing about preconditions, defaults, and return shape. For a debugging tool that likely depends on run-state, this is materially incomplete.

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?

All three parameters (levels, timeoutMs, startFrame) have 0% schema description coverage and the description does not compensate for any of them. It never explains that levels caps stack depth, that startFrame skips frames, or that timeoutMs bounds the wait — the most useful semantic, startFrame-based paging, is left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource — 'Get the PPC call stack' — and adds what the result contains (DWARF source paths and lines). That is enough to separate it from sibling tools like dolphin_variables, dolphin_memory, or dolphin_disassemble, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. target must be paused), and no mention of alternatives such as dolphin_execution or dolphin_status. An agent must infer that this tool is for inspecting the current call stack.

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