list_stacks

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the redundant "[READ]" tag adds nothing. What does add value: it discloses the target dependency and, with no output schema present, lists the fields the call returns. Minor gaps remain (pagination, error behavior).

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?

Tight and front-loaded: read indicator, resource, returned fields, prerequisite, then an Args block. Nearly every fragment earns its place; only the "[READ]" tag duplicates the annotation.

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 single-optional-param list tool with no output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers the prerequisite, the default behavior, and the returned shape. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only sibling-routing detail.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains that target is a "Target name from config" and that omitting it uses the default. That is more than the bare string/null schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb-tagged read operation on a specific resource (Portainer stacks, Compose/Swarm) and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, type, endpoint, status). It is largely differentiable from siblings like list_compose_stacks and stack_detail, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Names the sole prerequisite ("Requires a portainer target"), which is useful context. However it gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_compose_stacks/stack_detail, so routing guidance is only implied.

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