stack_services

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the parsed JSON format and return structure (list of dicts with fields). It does not disclose error handling for missing stacks, but annotations already convey safety.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a structured format for args and returns. Every line is informative with no waste.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. Lacks edge case handling (e.g., missing stack), but overall 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?

Despite schema description coverage 0%, the description includes an 'args' section that explains both parameters: 'name' as the stack, and 'filters' with an example. This adds meaning 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 clearly states it lists services of a stack using a specific format. The verb 'List' and resource 'services of a stack' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like service_list (global list) and stack_ps (tasks).

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 usage context (per stack) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. It provides clear scope but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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