dbg_select_frame

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states a simple action. Missing details on side effects (e.g., impact on future commands), validation, error handling, or session requirements.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but too minimal. It conveys purpose efficiently but omits necessary details that could be added without significant bloat.

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 debugger tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks context on the debug session, valid frame IDs, or relation to sibling tools like dbg_evaluate. Incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, so description should explain parameters, but it only mentions 'frame' generically. The names 'session_id' and 'frame_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no new information to aid correct parameter usage.

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 specifies the verb 'Set' and resource 'active frame', clearly indicating the tool's role in changing the debug context for evaluate/scopes/variables. It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated tools, though not from all sibling debug tools.

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 like dbg_backtrace or dbg_scopes. Missing prerequisites or context for invocation, leaving the AI agent to infer usage.

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