stack_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic behavior (shows status) without disclosing side effects, data persistence, rate limits, or the meaning of 'status'. The analogy helps but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and analogy. Second sentence directly explains the parameter. No extraneous words.

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's simplicity (1 required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. An output schema is present, so return values need not be described. Could improve by explicitly noting read-only behavior or expected error cases.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning: 'unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers' goes beyond the schema's 'Project Name' title. However, it does not specify allowed characters, length constraints, or examples.

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 the verb 'Shows the status of all containers' and the resource 'compose stack', with a helpful analogy to 'docker compose ps'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_inspect (individual container) and list_containers (all containers without stack context).

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 when to use this tool (when you need status of a stack's containers) but does not provide explicit when-not scenarios or alternative tools. No guidance on prerequisites or preferred contexts.

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