get_stacks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a fallback behavior for older DBs without resolved symbols (raw IPs) and describes return content, but does not mention if the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any other behavioral traits like side effects or rate limits.

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 three sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: stating what the tool does, describing return content, and providing a use case with edge case behavior. No redundant information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers return format (top stacks, symbol names, etc.) and a fallback scenario. It doesn't explain the tsc compression parameter or source filter values, but these are documented in the schema. For a moderate-complexity tool, it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters adequately. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 the tool gets resolved call stacks for CUDA/driver operations, returns top stacks by frequency with symbol names, source files, and timing stats, and explicitly answers 'what code path caused this operation?' This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 implies usage by stating 'One call answers what code path caused this operation?' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, missing some guidance for an AI agent.

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