dbg_backtrace

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 indicates a read operation ('Return') but does not discuss side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. The default behavior for thread_id is noted.

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?

Single sentence with 12 words, no filler. Essential information is front-loaded. Every part of the description adds value.

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?

For a simple backtrace tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main function and two params, but omits the required session_id. Lacks guidance on return format or error cases.

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 0%, yet the description explains two of three parameters: 'levels' (up to N frames) and 'thread_id' (default current). It fails to mention the required 'session_id', leaving its purpose unclear.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('stack frames for a thread'). It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dbg_list_threads' or 'dbg_evaluate' by focusing on stack frames.

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 implies usage when stack frames are needed and mentions a default (current thread), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dbg_disassemble' or 'dbg_source'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context.

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