edb_list_stack_arguments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions equivalence to EDB's panel and returns a string, but there is slight ambiguity about frame range vs. current frame. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively concise with a clear Args/Returns structure. Some redundancy exists between the first two sentences, but overall it is efficient.

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 simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., how arguments per frame are separated) and does not specify whether multiple frames are supported despite the frame_low parameter. Output schema existence is noted but not leveraged.

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 description repeats parameter information already present in the schema, but does so in a clear, narrative format. With schema covering the parameter details, the description adds limited additional value, consistent with baseline 3.

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 tool lists arguments for stack frames and references EDB's stack frame panel, indicating the specific resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like edb_get_arguments, preventing a score of 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_get_arguments or edb_get_locals. The description lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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