debuggerGoToStack

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. While 'navigates to' implies a state change in the debugger interface, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the current debugger state, or if there are side effects like pausing execution. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Navigates to a specific stack entry in the debugger'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (navigation in a debugger), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. This leaves the agent with incomplete guidance for safe and effective use.

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 parameter 'urlOrPosition' clearly documented as 'The URL or position of the stack entry.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('navigates to') and resource ('a specific stack entry in the debugger'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other debugger tools like debuggerStep or debuggerStackTrace by focusing on navigation to a particular stack position rather than stepping through code or retrieving stack information.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like debuggerStep (for stepping) or debuggerStackTrace (for viewing stack). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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