stack_frame

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description fails to inform the agent of important behavioral aspects beyond the minimal verb 'Get'.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is efficient but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the structure is too minimal to be fully effective. It earns a middle score for brevity without completeness.

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 the complexity of the domain (reverse engineering with many sibling tools), this description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'stack vars' are, how results are structured, or any constraints. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks the context needed for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('addrs' and 'instance_id'), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description 'Get stack vars' adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get stack vars' clearly indicates a read operation (Get) on stack variables (stack vars). It is specific about the resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'declare_stack' or 'delete_stack'. While not fully distinguishing, the purpose is clear enough for a basic understanding.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_function', 'decompile', or 'declare_stack'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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