GetCallStack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the thread-scoping behavior ('current call stack of the debugged thread'), which is useful, but it omits operational context such as whether the target must be paused or what happens if no session is active. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then itemizes the return structure compactly with no filler. The Returns block is somewhat long but each field (total, addr, from, to, comment) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by documenting the return dictionary fields in detail. The remaining gap is the absence of any operational precondition (paused/attached state), which slightly limits completeness for a debug tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it does not misrepresent any.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Get the current call stack of the debugged thread.' This is clearly distinguishable in concept from sibling inspection tools like GetRegisterDump, GetThreadList, and ReadMemory. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisitives (e.g., that the debuggee must be attached and paused), and no mention of alternatives among the many debug-stage siblings. The agent must infer that this is only meaningful during a paused debug session.

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