Debugger: Get Call Stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value beyond those: the halted-thread precondition, the top-frame-first ordering, and the default thread behavior. 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The primary return information is front-loaded, the required condition is stated immediately after, and the cross-tool usage note is compact and useful.

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 explains return shape, ordering, required precondition, and how the result connects to sibling tools, which is especially helpful given there is no output schema. It does not describe error behavior when the target is not halted, but the explicit HALTED requirement largely covers that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's threadIndex note repeats the schema's 'default the stopped/primary thread' almost verbatim)Skip, adding no new semantic value beyond the structured schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('call-stack frames') with concrete detail (function, file, line — top frame first). It is unambiguously distinct from sibling debugger tools and clearly scoped to the halted thread.

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?

It states the key precondition ('Requires the target to be HALTED') and gives sequencing context by explaining that a returned frame index feeds stackFrameIndex into debugger_get_variables / debugger_evaluate. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but no true alternative for call-stack retrieval exists among the siblings.

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