Registrierte Stacks listen

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful detail that the tool reads the 'neutral' stack catalog and manifests without executing components, providing context beyond the safety annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the important non-execution qualifier. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and a clear read-only purpose. The description adequately explains what is read and the non-executive behavior. Without an output schema, it could mention what is returned, but for a list operation this is largely implied.

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 only parameter, stacksRoot, is fully described in the JSON schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no new parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient.

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's function: it reads the stack catalog and its ellmos.stack.v2 manifests. It also explicitly notes that it does not execute stack components, distinguishing it from tools that might run or apply stacks.

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 implies the tool is for reading/listing stack metadata from the catalog, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like describe_stack or build_catalog. The 'without executing' caveat provides some usage context but no direct comparison.

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