get_local_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' indicates a non-mutating operation and 'stopped target' gives a precondition. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid stack levels, missing debug connection, or whether the operation can fail without 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?

A single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every part of the sentence adds meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not state the need for an active debugger connection, that a valid stack frame must exist, or what the returned local variables look like. It is a minimal one-liner for a two-parameter tool in a complex debugging context.

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 does not explain the targetId parameter or clarify stackLevel semantics (e.g., that 0 corresponds to the top frame). Only the phrase 'stack level' loosely hints at one of the two parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the minimal 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Read local variables at a stack level of a stopped target.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_call_stack and evaluate_expression by the resource being returned, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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' implies a precondition and when the tool is useful, so usage context is partially conveyed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention connection or suspension prerequisites beyond the target being stopped.

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