debug_get_backtrace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not mention preconditions, error behavior, whether the process must be paused, or what happens if the session is invalid. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description does not hint at the return format or the kind of information a backtrace contains. It also lacks usage context, so an agent must infer when and how to invoke it beyond what the schema provides.

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 schema already describes session_id as 'Debug session ID' and coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given how thoroughly the schema documents the only parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('call stack backtrace of the debugged process'), making the operation immediately clear. It is also distinguishable from sibling debug_get_* tools such as debug_get_registers or debug_get_threads because 'backtrace' is a unique and concrete resource.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as an active or paused debug session, and does not contrast itself with sibling debug_get_* tools.

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