get_stack_examples

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by stating results are 'bounded' and 'representative', implying a sampled subset rather than exhaustive output. However, it stops short of clarifying pagination behavior or the semantics of the cursor parameter, which could be relevant for large result sets.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and key qualifiers. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 adequate for a tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, but it leaves gaps: cursor/pagination is undocumented, and the term 'representative' is ambiguous. Given 4 parameters and the need to navigate pagination, a bit more context on how to use cursor or what 'representative' means would improve completeness.

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 75%, but the cursor parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not explain it. The description only reinforces 'limit' (bounded) and 'frame_id' (containing a frame), adding little new meaning beyond the schema. The cursor parameter remains undefined, which is a significant gap for a paginated tool.

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 ('Return'), names the resource ('stacks'), and qualifies the behavior ('bounded', 'representative', 'containing a frame'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_frame_callers and get_frame_callees, which focus on direct call relationships.

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 (e.g., get_frame_callers, get_trace_window). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and purpose.

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