edb_get_frame_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns frame information with args and locals, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is concise (~80 words) with a clear purpose statement and structured Args/Returns sections. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant content.

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 single parameter and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the input well and provides analogy to EDB's panel. However, it does not clarify what 'and more' includes or handle potential errors.

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 single parameter 'frame_level' is described in both the schema and the docstring with default 0 and meaning 'innermost'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description.

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?

Clearly states it gets detailed frame info including address, function, arguments, locals, and frame type. However, does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like edb_get_arguments or edb_get_locals which retrieve subsets of this data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_get_arguments, edb_get_locals). The description provides an analogy to EDB's call stack panel, implying it is a comprehensive view, but lacks direct comparison.

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