get_backtrace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal useful return-value shape by listing pc, function name, and source location per frame, but it does not disclose whether the target must be paused, whether the operation is read-only, or how session_id affects behavior. It does not contradict any annotations because none exist.

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 a single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information about the tool's output, making it appropriately concise for a simple introspection tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, and both parameters are effectively undocumented in the description. The one-line overview conveys the basic return format but omits parameter semantics, session context, and any state prerequisites, leaving the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description says nothing about max_frames or session_id. An agent cannot learn from the description how these parameters influence the call, despite the parameter names and defaults giving partial hints.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a stack backtrace and specifies the output contents: pc, function name, source file/line per frame. It is more specific than a tautology, but it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led command and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling inspection tools like disassemble or read_registers.

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 given on when to use get_backtrace versus other debugging tools, nor are prerequisites mentioned such as the target being stopped, a session being active, or the selected frame/thread. The only signal is the tool name itself, which implies usage but does not explain it.

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