Discovery: the three namespaces (sim_*, decide_*, calc_*), the cross-domain composite tools, the available ?profile= filters, and links to the standalone servers. Call this first to see everything AgentStack exposes. No parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is a discovery read operation, lists the types of information returned, and notes 'No parameters,' implying a safe, side-effect-free call. Without explicit safety hints, still clear enough for an index tool.
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 uses a colon to list the tool's contents, followed by an imperative usage directive. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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 simple discovery tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return categories and the recommended call order. The lack of an exact return format is acceptable given the tool's purpose, though a bit more detail on the 'links' could improve completeness.
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 description explicitly states 'No parameters,' which reinforces the schema. As a 0-parameter tool, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or unnecessary information.
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 identifies the tool as a discovery/index for AgentStack, listing exactly what it exposes (namespaces, composite tools, profile filters, server links). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools which perform specific calculations or decisions.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'Call this first to see everything AgentStack exposes,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. This is a strong directive that differentiates it from the specific tools it helps discover.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes across three namespaces (calc_, decide_, sim_) plus composites. Some conceptual overlap exists (e.g., decide_sensitivity vs. sim_sensitivity, decide_score vs. decide), but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
Names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a namespace prefix (calc_, decide_, sim_) and a descriptive verb_noun structure. Even composite tools and utilities like health_check and list_capabilities fit the pattern.
24 tools is on the heavier side, but it's justified for a meta-server exposing three distinct engines plus cross-domain composites. The count is appropriately scoped for the breadth of capabilities advertised.
The set covers all core domains with discovery (list_capabilities, *_list_*), health_check, and composite tools linking simulation to decision and valuation. Minor gaps include lack of a template management tool, but sim_run accepts free-form models, mitigating this.