roku_debug_stacktrace

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 usefully reveals the frame ordering (outermost to current), which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., if no thread is stopped), dependencies on an active debug session, or what happens if thread_index is invalid. This is partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, includes the essential resource, and adds a valuable detail about frame ordering. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary context.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, but the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The meaning of thread_index is entirely unexplained, and there is no connection to sibling tools like roku_debug_threads that could provide valid thread indices. While the output schema may cover return values, the missing parameter semantics and usage context make the definition inadequate for a debugger tool.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'thread_index' parameter. Yet the description never mentions thread_index, its meaning, how to obtain valid indices, or how it relates to the 'stopped thread' context. For a single-parameter tool, this is a critical omission that leaves the agent guessing how to invoke it correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Get the stack trace') on a specific resource ('for a stopped thread') and clarifies the return order (outermost to current). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like roku_debug_threads or roku_debug_variables, which focus on different aspects of the debug session.

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 phrase 'for a stopped thread' implies usage when a thread is halted, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like roku_debug_threads or roku_debug_variables. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.

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