debuggerGoToStack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not explain what 'navigates to' entails—e.g., whether it changes the debugger's current focus, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral effects, error conditions, and how it interacts with other debugger tools. This makes it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in complex debugging scenarios.

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, with 'urlOrPosition' documented as 'The URL or position of the stack entry.' The description does not add further meaning beyond this, such as examples or format details. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('navigates to') and target ('a specific stack entry in the debugger'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerStackTrace' or 'debuggerStep', which reduces clarity in context.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an active debugger session, and does not mention related tools like 'debuggerStackTrace' for listing stack entries or 'debuggerStep' for navigation by steps.

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