get_locals

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 discloses that the target must be halted and that it returns local variables per frame. However, it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, potential errors if not halted, or other side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise: three short sentences plus a returns line. Each sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, use case, and output. No redundant text.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description covers the essential: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. It does not elaborate on format or limitations, but with an output schema present, this is acceptable.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema requires no additional explanation. The description implicitly confirms that no arguments are needed, which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'the call stack with all local variables for each frame'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_callstack' by explicitly mentioning local variables, which is a differentiator.

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 description specifies a prerequisite: 'The target must be halted.' It also gives a use case: 'useful for understanding program state at the point of a breakpoint or crash.' However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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