get_call_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 of disclosing behavior. It states the action is a read operation, but does not say what happens if the target is not stopped, whether an invalid targetId produces an error or empty result, or whether auth/state requirements exist. This is a moderate gap given the lack of annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the verb, the resource, and the required state of the target, which is appropriately concise for such a simple 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 is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers what the tool reads and the condition required to use it. It could be more complete by explaining failure behavior or the return format, but for a straightforward getter among many debugger tools, it is largely sufficient.

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, but it only mentions 'a stopped target' without explaining that targetId identifies the debug target whose stack is read. The schema itself provides only minLength, so the agent receives minimal semantic guidance about the parameter beyond its name and type string. This is insufficient for a tool with no other parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb (Read) and a clear resource (the call stack), and scopes it further to 'a stopped target.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_local_variables or evaluate_expression, which target different debugger data.

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 phrase 'of a stopped target' is an implicit but strong usage condition: the tool is only meaningful when the target is stopped, not running. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but this context is enough for simple routing among the sibling debugger tools.

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