pwndbg_frame_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions it retrieves information, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or any side effects. Required permissions or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose statement followed by parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words.

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 description is minimal but covers the basics. It does not elaborate on what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it specify that the session must be active. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required, but more context about usage context would improve 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 coverage is 0% (only titles), so the description must add meaning. It explains that session_id is a UUID and frame_index defaults to 0 and means current frame. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though parameter constraints (e.g., frame_index must be non-negative) are absent.

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 gets 'detailed information about a stack frame' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like pwndbg_stackf or pwndbg_backtrace, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar ones.

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