docker_stack_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most important trait: secret values are hidden in the output, so agents won't expect credentials. It implies a read-only inspection but says nothing about permission requirements or what happens when the stack doesn't exist.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, why to use it, and the secret-hiding caveat. Front-loaded and free of 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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the core behavior plus the secret-masking caveat are covered. The unexplained 'host' parameter is a real gap for a tool that is otherwise simple.

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 0% for two parameters. The description only indirectly conveys that "stack" identifies the stack; the "host" parameter is never mentioned, so an agent has no idea it can target a remote host or what the default means.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it resolves a stack's compose file with variables interpolated, which is meaningfully different from docker_stack_file (raw file) and docker_stack_status. It stops just short of naming the sibling that would make the distinction unambiguous.

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?

"Good for finding a missing or wrong value in the .env file" gives a clear, concrete use case, so an agent knows to reach for it when debugging interpolation problems. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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