stack_services

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 context by noting the `--format '{{json .}}'` parsing and that a RuntimeError is raised on CLI failure. It also clarifies the service-level rollup, but does not detail all possible error conditions or empty-list behavior.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief usage note, then args/returns. No filler or redundant 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 output schema, the `returns` field provides the list shape (id, name, mode, replicas, image, ports). It covers prerequisites, alternatives, and error behavior, making it fully contextual for a 2-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. The args section explains both parameters: `name` is the stack to list, and `filters` includes an example and notes that a list value repeats the filter. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the services of a stack') and explicitly distinguishes itself from stack_ps and service_inspect, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Service-level rollup... use stack_ps for individual tasks and service_inspect for one service's full spec.' It also notes the prerequisite of a swarm manager, providing clear contextual guidance.

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