debuggerGoToStack

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'navigates,' without explaining what that entails (e.g., changing active frame, side effects, whether it requires an active session) or any constraints like 'readOnlyHint' or 'destructiveHint.'

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 sentence with no waste, but it lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too sparse to be effective given the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and the tool being part of a large debugger family, the description fails to explain required state, behavior, or results. It is incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The connection parameter includes extra context (overrides active connection, immune to restarts/switches), adding meaningful value beyond the schema. urlOrPosition description clarifies accepted formats.

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 verb 'navigates' and the specific resource 'stack entry in the debugger.' It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling debugger tools like debuggerStackTrace and debuggerStep.

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 (e.g., debuggerStackTrace to get the stack first) or any prerequisites (must be in an active debug session). The description only implies usage from context.

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