list_stacks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and clearly declares the operation is read-only. It also describes the return JSON shape, which helps an agent know what to expect. It omits details like limits or ordering, but these are not required for a simple read-only listing.

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-organized, with separate lines for action/usage, arguments, and return value. Every sentence contributes value, and the main use cases are front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no required arguments, the description covers the action, use cases, parameter filter, and return shape. An output schema exists, so the return description is a nice addition. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what happens when the filter is omitted, but that is easily inferred.

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 compensates by explaining the one parameter: 'Only the stack fronted by this asset.' This adds real meaning beyond the schema's type and default. It is concise but lacks an example, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('List every stack') and the resource (stacks in the library). It also gives practical use cases, which helps an agent understand when to call it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_stack, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 states when to use the tool: to see existing groupings before creating new stacks and to find a stack's id. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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