get_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and describes the return payload (id, primary_asset_id, asset list), giving the agent a clear expectation of side-effect-free behavior and output shape. It could add more detail about errors or not-found cases, but the core transparency is present.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage context, a read-only flag, and a clear returns section. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant content.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke get_stack correctly, though a more explicit note on where to obtain stack_id (e.g., from list_stacks output) would make it fully self-contained.

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 provides only a type and title for stack_id with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args line 'stack_id: The stack to fetch' is essentially a restatement, but the body's instruction to use the tool 'after list_stacks' implies that stack_id originates from list_stacks output, adding contextual meaning beyond the schema. Still, the parameter description is minimal and could explicitly state the source or format.

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 fetches a single stack and its assets, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('stack'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_stacks by noting it returns a single stack's full asset list, and positions it relative to create_stack, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after list_stacks to see everything a group holds before changing its cover or dissolving it, or to check what create_stack actually grouped.' This establishes the correct workflow and ties to sibling tools without needing further inference.

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