resolve_stack_trace

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: undoing name mangling, handling different frame types (declaration vs exact location), external frames resolving with origin=metadata, and preserving original trace order. No destructive behavior or side effects are described, but the tool is read-only by nature.

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 somewhat long but packs essential details in a structured way. It starts with the main action ('Map a pasted .NET stack trace') then lists specifics. Every sentence provides value; no tautology or filler. Could be slightly shortened, but still effective.

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 the complexity of stack trace resolution and the lack of output schema, the description covers return behavior well (frames resolved, order preserved, declaration vs exact location, origin=metadata). It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and what output to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much parameter meaning. It mentions the limit default (500) and that stack trace should be pasted as-is (multi-line), which slightly expands on schema. The description also adds info about output order, but that's not parameter-specific. Overall adequate.

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 maps a pasted .NET stack trace to file/line/symbol, undoing compiler name mangling. It specifies various mangling patterns (async/iterator, lambdas, local functions, generic arity) and trace formats (Exception.ToString, log-prefixed, inner-exception chains, Ben.Demystifier). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from any sibling tool.

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 says to use it for 'a pasted .NET stack trace' and details what types of traces it handles. It implies the tool should be used when needing to resolve symbols in a stack trace, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Given the uniqueness among siblings, this is clear enough.

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