Get Stack Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Reads stack outputs; does not contact the host,' which clarifies why this is not suitable for liveness checks. It also discloses the possible empty result ('nothing is deployed yet').

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives crisp usage boundaries. Every sentence earns its place, and the use/do-not-use sections are structured for quick agent scanning.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke correctly: what it returns, what it does not do, and when to choose an alternative. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, stackName, is fully described in the schema including the default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('what is deployed for a clawops-managed stack') and enumerates concrete outputs: public IP, gateway URL, SSH user, or nothing deployed. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it reads stack outputs and does not contact the host.

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 an explicit 'Use when' clause and a 'Do NOT use when' clause with named alternatives (clawops_doctor, clawops_logs_tail, clawops_config_get). This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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