stack_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It signals read-only with '[READ]' and notes the requirement of a portainer target. It does not discuss side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a read tool this is adequate.

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 very concise: one line for purpose, one line for requirement, and two lines for parameters. No redundant information; front-loaded with the key action.

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, the description mentions what details are returned (env, entrypoint, resource control) and the configuration requirement. It could hint at the format (e.g., JSON), but is sufficiently complete for a read tool.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description adds essential meaning: 'stack_id: Portainer stack id' and 'target: Target name from config; omit for the default'. This compensates well for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

Description starts with '[READ] One Portainer stack in detail (env, entrypoint, resource control)', clearly stating it retrieves detailed information for a single stack. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_stacks (list) and recreate_stack (modify).

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 mentions 'Requires a portainer target' and explains the target parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_stacks for overview) or provide exclusions.

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