pyocd_debug_backtrace

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

Although annotations are absent, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it uses DWARF CFI/EHABI for precise unwinding, falls back to heuristic scanning, and returns ordered frames. This covers important behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and add essential technical details. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no required ones, output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return format (ordered frames) and covers the unwinding methods, leaving no major gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic details beyond what the schema provides for 'max_frames' and 'scan_depth' (defaults and brief descriptions already present).

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 uses a specific verb ('Perform precise stack backtrace') and clearly identifies the resource ('full call chain'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on backtrace, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 states it is 'Essential for understanding HOW code reached the current point,' implying its primary use case. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but given the sibling tools, no direct competitor exists.

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