get_stack_frame_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves variables but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or what happens if the function address is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by including key usage notes, but it remains appropriately concise.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, as a tool with no annotations and in a context with many sibling tools, it lacks guidance on usage and behavioral context, which reduces completeness for effective agent operation.

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 100%, with the parameter 'function_address' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it retrieves variables for a 'given function', which aligns with the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the action ('Retrieve') and target ('stack frame variables for a given function'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_global_variable_value_at_address' or 'get_local_variable_type', leaving ambiguity about scope. The description is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a disassembled function) or contrast with tools like 'get_global_variable_value_by_name' or 'list_functions'. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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