Debugger: Get Call Stack

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavior: the requirement for the target to be halted, the ordering of frames (top first), and that the frame index is used as input elsewhere. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences: purpose, requirement, and downstream usage. No fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value. Efficient and well-structured.

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 introspection tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: output content and ordering, prerequisite (halted), and how the result is used. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (device, threadIndex) are already documented. The description mentions threadIndex's default (stopped/primary thread) but that is already in the schema. It doesn't add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Return the call-stack frames') with specific details (function, file, line, top frame first) and the context (halted thread). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_get_variables and debugger_evaluate, which serve different purposes. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly requires the target to be HALTED, a critical precondition, and explains how the output feeds into other tools (stackFrameIndex for debugger_get_variables/debugger_evaluate). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the halted requirement and output usage give clear context. Alternatives are implied through sibling tool names.

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