pwndbg_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. It states that the tool shows stack contents and is telescope-style, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, if it modifies state, or any side effects. The behavioral characterization is minimal.

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 includes useful sections (Args, equivalent command, source) but is somewhat verbose with source URL and category information. It could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 covers purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks usage context like when to use this tool vs siblings, required session state, or expected behavior with edge cases. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might supplement, but the description alone is insufficient for full contextual 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly explains all three parameters: session_id, count (default 8), and offset (from $sp in pointer-sized units). This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions.

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 shows stack contents using telescope-style dereference display and is equivalent to `telescope $sp`. It names a sibling (telescope) but does not explicitly differentiate from it or other stack-related tools like pwndbg_stackf or pwndbg_backtrace, yet the purpose is specific enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer pwndbg_stack over pwndbg_telescope, pwndbg_backtrace, or other stack display tools. It only states what it does, not when it is applicable.

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