get_exception_context

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

The description discloses required state: 'State: STOPPED required (stopped on exception).' It details the return content: exception type/message, inner exception chain, stack frames with source locations, and local variables. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and provides full behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with three focused paragraphs: purpose and state requirement, return content and usage guidance, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of exception context retrieval and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, required state, parameter effects, and usage precedence. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the input schema), the description fully compensates by listing all three parameters with defaults and explaining their roles (max_frames, include_variables_for_frames, max_inner_exceptions). This adds meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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's purpose: 'Get full exception context in one call (exception autopsy).' It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'exception context', and distinguishes it from the manual sequence of multiple calls. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when the debugger stops on an exception.' It also describes that this tool replaces the manual sequence (get_exception_info → get_call_stack → get_scopes → get_variables), and mentions an escape hatch for DAP requests. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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