get_debugger_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden; it does add genuinely non-obvious behavior — output is bounded/paginated and the stop/thread IDs are invalidated once the debugger resumes. It still says nothing about permission requirements, what happens when an ID has expired (error vs. empty result), how timeoutMs affects failure, or what responseMode changes.

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?

One tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the expiry caveat attached; no filler. It is arguably over-compressed given 7 parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 7-parameter debugger tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is thin: an agent cannot tell what a call returns, how pagination termination is signalled, what responseMode=compact vs debug yields, or how an expiry failure surfaces.

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% for 7 parameters, so the schema alone gives no meaning. The description only obliquely explains two concepts — "bounded" gestures at limit/offset and "IDs expire" at stopId/threadId lifetime — leaving debugSessionId, timeoutMs, and responseMode entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ("read") and resource ("stack frames") with a scoping qualifier ("bounded", "for a stopped thread"), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_debugger_locals and get_debugger_state. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it isn't a 5.

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?

"for a stopped thread" implies the precondition that execution must be halted, and "IDs expire on resume" implies a validity window, which together give an agent an implicit sense of when it can call this. However, no alternative tool is named (e.g., use get_debugger_locals for variables) and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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