get_stop_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds detailed behavioral context: returns stop reason, stack trace with source, locals in the top frame, hit count, and recent output lines. It also explains parameter defaults and effects, fully disclosing behavior beyond 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 well-structured with a short summary, a bullet-like list of returned items, usage guidance, and parameter descriptions. It is concise but could be slightly more compressed; however, every sentence serves a purpose and the structure aids readability.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (stop reason, stack trace, locals, hit count, output lines). It covers the two optional parameters fully. While it doesn't detail nested structures, the tool name and context imply standard debug information. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an aggregator 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It does so explicitly: 'include_variables: Include local variables for top frame (default True)' and 'include_output_tail: Include last N output lines (default 10, 0 to skip)'. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's bare defaults and titles.

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 'get' and resource 'rich context when stopped at any breakpoint'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming it replaces many other calls, and explicitly advises 'Call this FIRST when execution stops', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance to call this tool first when execution stops, positioning it as a primary aggregator. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the instruction to use it FIRST effectively conveys when to use it. The mention of an escape hatch for unwrapped DAP requests adds context.

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