stacktrace_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default async flattening and BCL infrastructure filtering, and explains how 'raw=true' bypasses these. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence explains default behavior and a key parameter option. Every sentence is valuable and 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?

The description is complete for its purpose but lacks details about the return format (e.g., structure of the stack trace). With no output schema, describing the return shape would improve completeness. Given the tool's simplicity and the context of debugging, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for the 'raw' parameter by specifying 'async flattening' and 'infrastructure filtering,' which goes beyond the schema's description. It does not add meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 it 'Get the call stack of a thread,' specifies the default async-flattening behavior, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'threads_list' or 'stack_explore' by focusing on a single thread's stack.

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 for retrieving a thread's stack trace with optional raw mode, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other debugging tools like 'stack_explore' or 'evaluate', nor does it provide criteria for choosing raw vs flattened output beyond the default.

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