unmap_stack_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires any permissions, has side effects, or error handling behavior. The description only states the action and inputs, leaving gaps about what happens internally or under failure conditions.

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, consisting of two sentences that deliver all necessary information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and efficiently explains inputs.

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 two simple parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, inputs, and the origin of the mapping file. It could briefly mention what the output looks like (e.g., unmapped trace), but the output schema handles that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a tool of this complexity.

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 effectively compensates by naming both parameters and providing context: 'trace' is described as 'plain text', and 'mapping_path' is described as 'the path to a mapping file produced by --save-mapping.' This adds meaningful usage guidance beyond the bare schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Reverse obfuscated identifiers in a stack trace using a pyobfus mapping.json.' It specifies the verb (reverse), resource (stack trace), and method (mapping file), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_obfuscation_risks and generate_pyobfus_config.

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 implies usage by stating what it does and what inputs are needed (trace as plain text, mapping file path). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling tools, usage context is implied but not explicit.

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