stack_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it parses output via `--format '{{json .}}'` but abstracts that, states a prerequisite (swarm manager), explains error behavior (raises RuntimeError on CLI failure), and describes the return shape (list of dicts with name, services count, orchestrator).

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 concise—four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, error behavior, and return value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, error handling, and return format. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 lists stacks deployed to the swarm, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from `compose_list` (non-swarm equivalent) and `stack_services` (drill into a single stack), making sibling differentiation explicit.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: requires the target daemon to be a swarm manager, points to `compose_list` as the non-swarm alternative, and suggests `stack_services` for drilling into one stack. This gives clear context and alternatives.

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