debug_stack

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates that frames are returned. It does not disclose pagination/truncation behavior, whether it is a pure read, whether it fails when not stopped, or anything about the shape of the returned frames.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and result. It is efficient, though the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage on all three parameters, this tool needed the description to explain state prerequisites and parameter meaning. It does far too little for a debugger tool where an agent must know the target is stopped and what 'levels' controls.

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 0% across three parameters, and the description only indirectly hints that threadId is optional ('current stopped thread'). It adds nothing about the 'levels' depth parameter (default 20) or what sessionId refers to, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('stack frames') with a clear scope qualifier ('current stopped thread'). An agent can tell this apart from sibling readers like debug_scopes and debug_variables by the returned artifact, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'current stopped thread' implies the debuggee must be paused, which is a mild state prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over debug_scopes or debug_variables, no exclusions, and no statement of what happens if the process is running.

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