get_stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that every override key is listed, with values returned for location-shaped keys and '[REDACTED]' for credential-shaped ones. This is beyond what annotations provide and helps set expectations about sensitive data handling. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get details of a stack including its templates and config overrides') and then adding essential detail about redaction behavior. There is zero fluff, and every word earns its place. It is concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema (though not displayed here) and the annotations already cover safety, the description covers the main return value categories (templates and config overrides) and the redaction behavior. It does not explain pagination or any fields beyond overrides, but for a get-by-id tool, this is reasonably complete. Minor gap: it doesn't state what happens if the stack doesn't exist, but that is typical and not required.

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 input schema has only one parameter 'id' with 100% coverage (it describes it as 'Stack ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add syntax or format details for the id, but with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3. However, the description implicitly indicates the id identifies the stack to fetch, and the parameter is simple. Slight credit for implying the id's role in fetching, but the schema already covers it, so a 3 or 4 is fair. I give 4 because the description's mention of 'stack' clarifies the resource type that the id refers to, adding slight semantic context.

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 'Get details of a stack including its templates and config overrides', specifying the resource (stack) and the type of information returned. It distinguishes itself from list_stacks (which likely lists stacks) and other get_* tools by focusing on stack details, though it doesn't name a specific sibling. The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is clear.

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 it: when you need details of a single stack. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but among siblings like list_stacks and get_deployment, the context is reasonably clear that this tool is for a specific stack's details. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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