debuggerStackTrace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active debugger session, permissions needed, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data, plain text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's front-loaded but could benefit from additional context to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex debugging data. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., stack frames, line numbers), prerequisites (e.g., must be in debug mode), or error conditions. For a debugger-related tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.

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 100%, with one optional parameter 'semanticURIs' fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when to use semantic URIs or their impact on the stack trace. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Retrieves the debugger stack trace' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (debugger stack trace), but it's vague about what a 'debugger stack trace' entails (e.g., current session, specific breakpoint). It doesn't distinguish from sibling debugger tools like debuggerVariables or debuggerStep, which handle different aspects of debugging.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for active debugging sessions, post-mortem analysis, or how it relates to other debugger tools like debuggerListen or debuggerGoToStack. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.

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