switch_my_bt2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation method (walks frame pointer chain) and output format (module-relative offsets), establishing it as a read-only operation via the verb 'Print'. However, it omits error conditions, failure modes (e.g., missing frame pointers), and exact output structure.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, while the second provides essential technical implementation details. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter debugging utility without output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and distinguishing characteristics. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with 'switch_my_bt' or describing the output format, but it provides sufficient context for invocation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. Per the evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than non-existent parameters.

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 uses specific technical verbs ('Print', 'Walks', 'resolves') and clearly identifies the resource (backtrace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'switch_my_bt' and 'gdb_get_backtrace' by specifying the unique characteristic: offsets relative to the base of main rather than absolute addresses.

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?

The description explains the specific output format (module-relative offsets) which implies when to use it (when needing position-independent offsets), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. It does not state when to prefer this over 'switch_my_bt' or 'gdb_get_backtrace'.

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