editor_get_stack_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running), potential failure modes, or what is returned in edge cases. The lack of such details makes it minimally transparent.

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 a single sentence of seven words, immediately conveying the core function without any filler. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While the tool itself is simple, the description lacks contextual details about when it is valid (e.g., only during an active debug session) and what the return value looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should fill this gap but does not, making it only minimally complete.

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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information, correctly leaving it at that.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'current call stack from debugger,' making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_get_debug_variables or editor_debug_break, which serve different debugging functions.

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 context that this tool is associated with the debugger, implying it should be used when debugging is active. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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