Get stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "Read-only." merely repeats that. It adds some behavioral context (the call returns the full asset list of the group) but says nothing about response size, pagination, or limits on a potentially large stack.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the when-to-use, then param and return notes. The Args/Returns sections are short and the whole thing is a handful of sentences with 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 one-parameter read with an output schema (so return fields need no prose expansion) and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. Only edge-case behavior for very large stacks is unaddressed.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it documents the single parameter as "The stack to fetch" — thin but sufficient to identify the id. It adds no format hints (id shape, where the id comes from) beyond what the schema's name already implies.

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?

"One stack with its assets" names a specific resource and scope, and immediately separates it from list_stacks by implying a single-item fetch with its asset list. The title "Get stack" plus the description make the operation unambiguous, though the verb itself is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call this after list_stacks, before changing a cover or dissolving (pointing at update_stack/delete_stack), or to verify what create_stack grouped. It names concrete sibling tools and the decision context that selects this one.

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