Monitor Stack Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-schema behavior: it is a live snapshot rather than streaming, it is scoped to a running stack, and it is richer than clawops_status. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly scoped and front-loads the core action and contents, then provides crisp usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the Do NOT use section prevents misuse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only snapshot tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers invocation scope, output contents, relationship to siblings, and exclusion cases. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly without additional information.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented (stackName defaults to active stack; tailLines defaults to 5). The description's mention of 'recent log lines' aligns with tailLines but does not add parameter-level depth beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 ('Take a live snapshot') and resource ('running clawops stack'), and enumerates exactly what it covers: gateway health, container status, resource usage, and recent log lines. It also differentiates itself from clawops_status by positioning itself as a richer health overview.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' conditions and explicit 'Do NOT use when' exclusions with named alternatives (clawops_logs_tail, clawops_config_get). An agent can unambiguously select this tool versus siblings based on stated user intent.

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