stack_status

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

Without annotations, the description provides good transparency by explicitly listing what information is returned (initialization state, component status, URLs, deployed contracts). It implies a read-only operation with no side effects.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get' and immediately stating the resource. Every word adds value without waste.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could potentially mention prerequisites (e.g., stack initialized), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, achieving the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool gets the current status of the Scaffold-ETH stack, listing returned information types (initialization state, component status, URLs, deployed contracts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stack_init or stack_start.

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 explicit usage guidance is given. It is implied that the tool is used to obtain overall stack status, but no when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, which is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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