List stacks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" restates structured data. The description does add a scoping rule for the filter and a sketch of the payload (total plus a stacks array), but the output schema already documents the return shape, so the net new behavioral context is thin.

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 purpose sentence followed by usage, a one-line scope note, and structured Args/Returns blocks. Minor waste in repeating "Read-only" and in a Returns section that duplicates the output schema, but nothing is padded or buried.

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-optional-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this is essentially sufficient: purpose, when to use it, filter meaning and payload shape are all present. Only the edge-case behavior of the filter is left unstated.

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 must compensate for the single parameter, and it does explain that primary_asset_id narrows results to the stack fronted by that asset. However, it does not say whether the value is an asset id string, whether an unknown or unstacked asset returns an empty array or an error, or whether omission means all stacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource, "List every stack in the library", and adds the practical outcome of finding a stack's id. It is clearly distinct from get_stack or create_stack by name alone, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

It gives two concrete use cases: inspecting existing groupings before creating a new stack, and looking up a stack id. That implicitly routes the agent away from create_stack and toward get_stack for detail, but no explicit exclusion or alternative is spelled out.

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