get_stack_examples

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are bounded and representative, which is useful, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or how representative sampling is determined.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core behavior is communicated immediately and efficiently.

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?

For a read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable: an agent can identify required inputs and understand the general purpose. However, it lacks usage placement among sibling frame-analysis tools and leaves metric/cursor semantics to the agent's inference.

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 schema descriptions cover run_or_artifact, frame_id, and limit, but cursor and metric are undocumented. The tool description does not compensate by explaining metric or cursor semantics, and it mostly echoes the schema's frame and bounded wording.

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?

States a s pecific verb and resource: returning bounded representative stacks that contain a given frame. It is clear enough to separate it from frame callers/callees, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_frame_callers or get_frame_calees. The description only says what it returns, not when it should be preferred.

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