list_stacks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about stacks, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the list is workspace-scoped, pagination behavior, or if only stacks in a certain state are returned. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences provide relevant domain context that helps the agent understand the resource being listed. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains what a stack is and that it lists all stacks. It could be more explicit about scope (e.g., all stacks in the account vs. workspace), but the output schema likely covers the return shape, and the complexity is low.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. The schema coverage is effectively 100% since no parameters exist.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all infrastructure stacks') and further defines what a stack is in this domain (groups templates with domain assignment, can have multiple deployments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_templates, list_deployments, and get_stack, which target different resources or filters.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action and domain context, but does not mention that get_stack should be used for a specific stack or that list_deployments should be used for deployments. No exclusions or alternative routes are provided.

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