stack_ps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate. It adds value by detailing the output structure (list of dicts with specific fields) and the parsing approach, which aids in understanding the response format. No contradictions.

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?

One clear sentence for purpose, then a structured args/returns list. No wasted words. The use of a JSON example for filters is concise and helpful.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type and fields. All parameters are covered. The tool's complexity (3 simple params) is fully addressed.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: stack_name, no_trunc (with behavior), and filters (with example JSON). This provides essential meaning beyond bare types.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair 'List the tasks of a stack', distinguishing it from siblings like stack_services (lists services) and service_tasks (lists tasks per service). The specific scope is immediately apparent.

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 the tool is for listing tasks within a stack context, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like service_tasks. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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