gdb_get_backtrace

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

Missing annotations put the burden on the description, which only mentions requiring a session_id and the type of output. No disclosure of side effects (e.g., thread state requirements), error behavior, or idempotency. Minimal behavioral info is provided.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded main action. No fluff, each sentence adds necessary context. Efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and a prerequisite.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain return format. It only vaguely says 'Shows...' without specifying if output is a list, string, or structured data. Given the complexity of a backtrace, this is incomplete for effective use.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds value by clarifying that thread_id defaults to current thread (None) and explicitly stating session_id is required. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Get the stack backtrace' with specific details on thread scope and output content (function calls, file locations, line numbers). This distinguishes it from siblings like gdb_get_frame_info (get specific frame) and gdb_get_registers (register values).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gdb_get_frame_info or gdb_get_threads. The description only implies use for backtrace retrieval but lacks explicit context for selection, such as prerequisites or when not to use.

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