komodo_get_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but doesn't state idempotency, permission requirements, or error behavior (e.g., what happens for a nonexistent stack ID). An output schema exists, so return-format disclosure is not required, but behavioral traits remain undocumented.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first. The Args/Returns boilerplate is formulaic but not bloated, and the Returns line is redundant given an output schema exists.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are marginally covered: it says what it returns is stack info including configuration. But the parameter's origin and behavioral traits are unaddressed, leaving gaps an agent must fill by inference.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'stack' parameter, and the description only restates 'stack: Stack ID'. This adds no meaning beyond the name – no format, no examples, no note about where IDs come from (e.g., komodo_list_stacks). Description must compensate here and does not.

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 verb (Get) and resource (stack), and 'detailed information about a specific stack' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_stacks which enumerates stacks. It lacks explicit sibling naming but the read-vs-list distinction is implied by 'specific'.

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 mention of alternatives like komodo_list_stacks or related get_* tools, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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