stack_ls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it requires the daemon to be a swarm manager and describes the return structure (list of dicts with name, services count, orchestrator). This goes beyond the annotations, though it could mention additional behavioral details like error cases.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, prerequisite, and return format. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly comprehensive: it states the action, a key requirement, and the return format. However, it omits details like whether the return is paginated or the exact key names in the dict, but these are minor gaps.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to the scoring guidelines, this yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 'List the stacks deployed to the swarm', which is a specific verb+resource. It provides the parsed format detail. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like stack_services or list_services, though the target is clear.

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 a prerequisite: 'Requires the target daemon to be a swarm manager (raises otherwise)'. This provides context for when this tool can be used, but it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stack_ps or list_services.

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