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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key trait: this is an informational plan, not an executor — the agent's host runs the commands and deciding/configuring is left open. That is genuinely useful beyond the schema. It says nothing about whether execution state or permissions affect the result, or what happens if the stack is not installable.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by the responsibility split. Some phrasing is compressed to the point of ambiguity ('for the rest', 'Deciding and configuring are open'), which costs a little clarity but nothing is padded.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description sketches the return shape (servers, commands, notes) well enough for an agent to plan. Gaps remain around conditional content — whether notes are optional, what a stack with no commands returns, and error behavior for an unknown owner/slug — but the essentials are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, with both owner and slug fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about how owner/slug resolve (e.g. the 'runchr' namespace or slug normalization) beyond what the schema already states.

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 states concretely what the tool yields for a stack: the MCP servers to configure, the shell commands to run, and notes (a path, a harness command). That is a specific resource description rather than a restatement of the name. It never explicitly contrasts itself with get_stack or get_manifest, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'the plan' and 'the stack/manifest'.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this when you need to install a stack, and the closing sentence defines the division of labor ('Deciding and configuring are open; the agent's host runs the commands'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives, which leaves selection between get_stack, get_manifest, and get_install_plan to inference.

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