pwndbg_backtrace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the function and parameters but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as state requirements (e.g., process must be stopped), output format, or side effects (e.g., destructive actions). This is insufficient for a debugging tool.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a bullet list of parameters. Every word is functional, no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool has an output schema (declared true), so description need not detail return values. For a backtrace tool, the description adequately covers what it does and key parameters. However, given many sibling tools, a bit more context on usage scenarios would enhance completeness.

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 explains each parameter's purpose: session_id as UUID, full for showing all frames, limit for optional frame count. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema types, though it could include constraints like positive integers for limit.

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 'Show call stack backtrace (LLDB native)', specifying the verb (show) and resource (call stack backtrace). It is distinct from siblings like pwndbg_stack or pwndbg_frame_info, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, leaving 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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only lists parameters without context about appropriate scenarios.

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