retrace_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys a non-mutating decode operation, but doesn't disclose error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., sourcemap existence), or limitations (e.g., only TypeScript). The core behavior is clear, but edge-case behavior is absent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no extraneous words. Every part adds value, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content (original file/line/column) and required inputs. It could mention failure modes (e.g., missing sourcemap) or return format details, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100% for both required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only hints at the outcome (TypeScript files) rather than explaining how the parameters interact or expected formats.

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 a specific verb 'Decode' with a clear resource ('minified production stack trace') and outcome ('original TypeScript source files, lines, and columns'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools that focus on context retrieval, sourcemap auditing, or path normalization.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a minified production stack trace and need to map it to original source. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance on when not to use or which sibling tool to prefer.

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