get_stack_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or describe any side effects. While reading a stack trace is inherently read-only, this is not explicitly conveyed.

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 phrase lacking proper sentence structure. It is concise but at the expense of clarity and utility. Every word should add value, but this description under-specifies the tool's purpose.

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 the complexity of debugging contexts and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention output format, relation to other tools, or any contextual details necessary for correct usage.

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 only 50% (includeInternals has a description, but sessionId does not). The tool description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The agent gains no additional semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description is a tautology: 'Get stack trace' merely restates the tool name without specifying what kind of stack trace (current thread? all threads?) or any additional context. It provides no differentiation from sibling tools like get_local_variables or get_scopes.

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 usage guidance whatsoever. There is no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_local_variables or evaluate_expression, nor any prerequisites or caveats.

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