analyze_stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it only works on a halted core, and the overflow verdict is conditional on stack_size/stack_limit being supplied. It does not describe the return payload structure, but with annotations covering behavior this is solid.

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?

Front-loads what is reported, then the defaults/parameter rules, then the positioning statement. Four compact sentences, each doing work; only slight overlap with the schema on parameter behavior.

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, the description adequately covers what comes back (used/free bytes plus a verdict) and the precondition (halted core, overflow check needs a size or limit). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though return-format detail is left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds minor value by restating the stack_top default source and the stack_size vs stack_limit relationship, but mostly echoes the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reports stack used/free bytes') plus a distinct outcome ('a clear overflow verdict for the halted core'), which separates it from nearby siblings like read_call_stack or diagnose_fault. The closing line 'key tool for diagnosing stack overflows' pins down its niche explicitly.

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?

Explains the conditional behavior clearly: provide stack_size or stack_limit for the overflow check, otherwise only usage is reported. It also scopes the tool to a 'halted core'. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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