DebugGetStack

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

With no structured annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral facts itself: it is read-only, requires a stopped debuggee, is not used in batch mode, and returns frames with ADT object addresses and technical places. It does not discuss error behavior if the debuggee is not stopped, but the main operational constraints are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loads the key tags and purpose. Every sentence contributes either the action, the return shape, or an operational constraint, with no wasted wording.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of stating what is returned and the necessary precondition. It leaves out some edge-case behavior, such as what happens when no stopped debuggee exists, but is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the detail enum and state_handle are already well documented. The description adds only that state_handle refers to the debug session, while it does not explain the detail levels beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: retrieving the call stack of the stopped debuggee for a debug session identified by state_handle. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling debug tools such as DebugGetVariables or DebugListBreakpoints by naming the exact debug artifact returned.

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?

It gives clear preconditions: the debuggee must be stopped, and the tool runs outside batch mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when to prefer a different debug tool, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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