get_stacks

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

The description discloses the return format (top stacks by frequency with symbols, source files, timing stats) and fallback behavior for older DBs. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, which it largely meets. However, it doesn't mention potential performance impact or permissions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and adds important context (fallback) in a compact manner.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output structure and covers key behaviors. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get resolved call stacks for CUDA/driver operations', specifying a specific verb and resource. The scope is well-defined and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'get_causal_chains' or 'get_trace_stats'.

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 suggests usage by answering 'what code path caused this operation?' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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