list_stacking_signers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: the default cycle, the inclusion filter tied to the signer-set minimum, the exclusion consequence, and a cost signal for withPayoutInfo ('slower'). It does not state auth requirements, result-size/pagination characteristics, or that the call is side-effect free beyond what 'List' implies.

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?

Front-loads what is listed and what is returned, then the filtering rule and the optional flag. The closing 'Tip' is mildly tangential but does earn its place by routing to a related tool. Slightly denser than needed, but no wasted sentences.

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 2-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description conveys enough of the return shape ('with the STX delegated to each', optional payout paths) and the filtering semantics to call it correctly. Missing only minor specifics like ordering or how large the signer set can be.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in-schema, including the next-cycle default and the one-extra-request-per-signer cost. The description restates these rather than adding new syntax, ranges, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and a precise resource (PoX-5 signer managers in the signer set for a reward cycle) plus the payload returned (STX delegated to each). It goes further and defines the domain term ('A signer manager is what stack_stx stakes with'), so an agent can place this tool relative to stack_stx and the stacking tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the default (next cycle) and an explicit alternative path: managers below the signer-set minimum are excluded here but can still be staked with by contract id. It also names the condition for the expensive option ('Set withPayoutInfo to see how each manager pays stakers (slower)') and routes to earning_opportunities. It stops short of stating the canonical workflow (call this before stack_stx to pick a manager), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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