debuggerGoToStack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'navigates to' implies a state change in the debugger interface, it doesn't specify whether this requires an active debug session, what happens to the current view, or if there are side effects like pausing execution. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a debugger operation.

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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'navigates to' entails behaviorally, what the user should expect after invocation, or how it interacts with other debugger tools. Given the complexity of debugger operations, more context is needed for effective use.

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 the parameter 'urlOrPosition' documented as 'The URL or position of the stack entry.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With 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 ('specific stack entry in the debugger'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling debugger tools like debuggerStep or debuggerStackTrace, which might have overlapping navigation or stack-related functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple debugger-related siblings (e.g., debuggerStep, debuggerStackTrace, debuggerVariables), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others.

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