get_stacktrace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output format ('pre-rendered Markdown') and a quality comparison ('more readable than raw frame data'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the event_id is invalid. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the core purpose and a key benefit. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first states what the tool does, and the second explains why it's useful. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or response structure. For a tool with no output schema, it should ideally describe the return value more explicitly, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'event_id' parameter documented as 'The event ID (UUID) to get stacktrace for.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get an event's stacktrace as pre-rendered Markdown.' It specifies both the action ('Get') and the resource ('event's stacktrace'), and distinguishes it from raw frame data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_event' that might also retrieve event data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that the output is 'more readable than raw frame data,' which implies a comparison but doesn't specify what those alternatives are (e.g., 'get_event' for raw data) or when to choose this tool over them. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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