backtrace

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

The description discloses the limit parameter but does not mention other behavioral traits such as side effects, required session state, or error handling. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but is adequate for a simple inspection tool.

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 sentences covering purpose and parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool has an output schema and only 2 parameters, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., active session) and output format, which the output schema may provide.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for the limit parameter ('maximum number of frames to show (omit for full stack)') but provides no explanation for session_id. This partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 tool shows the call stack and references GDB backtrace/bt. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'context' or 'info_registers'.

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., when to use backtrace vs context). The description only states what it does without usage context.

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