List Stacks

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral scope: it enumerates managed stacks across all configured providers and has no filtering. It doesn't describe output format or pagination, but for a read-only list with zero parameters that is a minor gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states what the tool does, followed by expanded use-when and do-not-use guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns at a conceptual level ('overview of deployments'), when to use it, and which sibling to route to when a specific stack is named. No critical context is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully covers this dimension. The description reinforces the no-parameter, unfiltered nature by saying 'all' stacks 'across all configured providers,' which helps an agent understand that no arguments are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all clawops-managed stacks across all configured providers.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling clawops_status by explicitly saying that a named specific stack should go to clawops_status instead. This gives an agent a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('user wants an overview of their deployments', 'what stacks do I have', 'compare stacks before an operation') and when not to use it ('user named a specific stack'), and names the alternative tool (clawops_status). This satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives requirement fully.

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