get_query_stack_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the result ('source location') and does not explain what the returned location looks like, whether authentication is required, or what happens if the queryIndex or requestId is invalid. The read-only nature is implied, not stated.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and target, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters including auth fields, the description omits essential context: how requestId/queryIndex are obtained, what authentication approach is expected, and what the returned source location will contain. The tool is not fully invocable based on the description alone.

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 input schema already documents all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's definitions for requestId and queryIndex.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('source location for a database query'), which is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_queries or get_log_stack_trace. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling, so it stops short of full distinctiveness.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a requestId from get_queries or an active Clockwork connection), or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The single sentence implies a use case but does not instruct an agent on selection.

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