enrichStackTrace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. Description adds behavioral context: parses traces, filters to in-workspace files, returns commit info. Discloses no destructive side effects.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the main action, followed by supported trace formats and output summary. No wasted 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?

No output schema, but description explains return structure (per-frame commit + top suspect). Sufficient for a tool with clear input schema and read-only annotation. Could mention error handling or performance bounds.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds little beyond schema, only hinting that stackTrace is multi-line and maxFrames defaults to 10 (already in schema).

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?

Clearly states the verb 'map', resource 'stack-trace frames to introducing commits', and scope 'via git blame'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like gitBlame and enrichCommit by specifying parsing Node/Python/browser traces and returning per-frame commit plus suspect.

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?

Implied usage for debugging stack traces, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Doesn't mention alternatives like gitBlame or testTraceToSource, which could be more appropriate for simpler blame queries.

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