stone_solution_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, which is the only behavioral signal; nothing is said about whether the solution must exist on disk, what happens when the solution argument is omitted, or whether results are cached/stale.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is buried or repeated. Brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than wasted 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description leaves key call-time questions unanswered: default solution resolution and the shape of the returned project/file/config listing. For an inspection tool that is the entry point to a workflow, more context is warranted.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'solution' parameter is undocumented and not required. The phrase 'of a .stone solution' hints that the parameter identifies the solution, but gives no format (path? name? .stone file extension?) or default behavior when omitted.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') with three concrete resources (projects, registered files, build configurations) scoped to a .stone solution. That clearly separates it from mutating siblings like stone_solution_create and stone_files_add, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus stone_solution_create, stone_files_add, or stone_doctor, nor any prerequisite such as 'call after stone_solution_create'. The agent must infer from the name that this is the read/inspect step in the workflow.

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