Stack health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output-level context (severity grading plus 'what to try'), but says nothing about cost, scope of scanning, or auth needs.

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 tight sentence with zero waste; the primary information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded.

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, fully-annotated, single-optional-param read tool, the description is nearly sufficient, especially since it sketches the return shape in the absence of an output schema. Only the remediation-hint format and any sizing/scope caveats remain unspecified.

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?

Single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('one node name; omit for all'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, naming, or formatting detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific resource and output shape: graded health findings (FAIL/WARN/INFO/OK) for the AI stack's nodes, plus remediation hints. Clear what it returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings stack_snapshot or explain.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer stack_snapshot or explain instead. The diagnostic intent is only weakly implied by 'health findings'.

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