stack_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by mentioning the output is parsed from a specific format and returns a list of dicts with fields (name, services count, orchestrator), which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence for purpose, one for prerequisite. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence provides necessary 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?

Given no parameters and the presence of annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the output format (list of dicts with specific fields). However, it could mention potential edge cases like empty results or large output handling, but for a simple list tool, it is sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. It adequately describes the output structure.

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', explicitly naming the action (list) and resource (stacks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stack_ps and stack_services which list tasks or services within a stack.

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 notes a prerequisite: 'Requires the target daemon to be a swarm manager (raises otherwise).' This provides clear context for when the tool can be used, but does not explicitly mention when to choose it over alternatives like stack_list vs stack_services.

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