frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful semantic that level 0 is the innermost frame, but says nothing about return format or how 'source/variables' continue from current context.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The action/param map is compressed into a single readable line and the key semantic constraint is appended last.

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 6 fully documented params and a oneOf schema, and no output schema required, the description covers the shape of all three operations adequately. It stops short of explaining what each action returns, but the schema carries the rest.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by mapping which parameters belong to which action (select→level, source→location/count, variables→level/include_raw), which is not obvious from the oneOf structure alone. The 'level 0 is innermost' note also clarifies the most important enum-adjacent parameter.

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 resource (stack frames) and enumerates the three operations (select/source/variables), so an agent knows this is stack-frame navigation rather than a stack dump. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like read_call_stack or analyze_stack, which would push it higher.

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 action breakdown implies when each operation applies (choose level, view source, inspect variables), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over read_call_stack, analyze_stack, or step. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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