Registrierten Stack beschreiben

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns validation warnings, which gives a hint about the output and potential failure modes, but it does not go into depth about error handling or prerequisites beyond 'registrierten 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the output categories without any redundant words or 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 read-only describe tool with a simple parameter set and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing four output categories. It covers the essential purpose and output, though it omits any edge-case behavior or extended details about how to use stacksRoot.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning. The description implies stackId refers to a registered stack, but that is already in the schema description. Therefore, it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 uses the verb 'Zeigt' and specifies the exact content (typisierte Komponenten, Pflichtrollen, Policies, Validierungswarnungen) for a registered stack, making the action and resource clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_stacks, but the describe-versus-list distinction is evident.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The context is implied from the tool's purpose: an agent would use it to get detailed stack information, but there is no exclusionary language or comparative reference to sibling tools.

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