list_stacks

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read access. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: it discloses that auto-generated stacks derive from '5,000+ compatibility pairs' with 'verified or inferred compatibility data,' helping the agent understand data quality and completeness. It does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 well-structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by definitional context. The third sentence providing compatibility data details is informative rather than wasteful, though slightly specific for a high-level description.

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 the tool has zero parameters, an output schema (removing the need to describe return values), and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers the conceptual domain by explaining what 'stacks' represent in this context. It successfully characterizes the data model (curated vs. auto-generated).

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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the baseline score applies. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification since the tool accepts no arguments.

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 ('List') + resource ('stacks') + scope ('all stacks on IndieStack'), clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings by characterizing stacks as 'curated bundles and auto-generated combinations' rather than individual tools or compatibility checks.

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?

While the description explains that stacks are 'pre-built combinations,' implying they are existing configurations rather than new creations, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus `build_stack` (creation) or `find_tools` (individual discovery). The usage is implied through the data description but not stated explicitly.

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