stack_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the action (shows status) which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that no modifications occur, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects.

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 brief and to the point, with the primary action stated first. The parameter explanation is concise and directly relevant, with no superfluous information.

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 read-only status tool with a single parameter, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly. It does not detail the return format, but the presence of an output schema likely covers that, and the tool's purpose is clear.

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 schema provides no description for the parameter, but the tool description adds a meaningful explanation: 'unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers'. This clarifies the parameter's role and compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 states the tool's function: showing the status of all containers in a compose stack. The analogy to 'docker compose ps' is immediately recognizable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stack_logs or list_stacks.

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 implies usage via the 'docker compose ps' analogy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No direct comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the action alone.

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