List Docker stacks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by detailing the fields returned and specifically noting that sensitive data (compose files, repository URLs, paths, secrets) are omitted, which helps set expectations. It does not introduce contradictions and provides useful behavioral context 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 two sentences long and immediately states the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a critical exclusion note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return fields. It covers the essentials and the schema fills in the environment_id behavior. It does not mention pagination or filtering specifics, but those are implied by the parameter description and the tool's simplicity, so 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 schema already describes the only parameter (environment_id) with 100% coverage, including a note that it is from list_environments. The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists stack names, states, types, and resource counts, using a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('stacks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on stacks and explicitly noting what is omitted (compose files, repository URLs, paths, secrets), making the scope unmistakable.

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 usage by outlining the exact information returned, making it clear when to use this tool for stack summaries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the singular focus on stacks and the optional environment_id parameter (which references list_environments) provide practical context for filtering. The absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is a minor gap.

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