stack_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. Beyond that the description does add useful scope information (resource counts, optional service names and descriptions), but says nothing about ordering, freshness, or behavior on an empty/unknown project.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of information. The only waste is the 'Read-only' sentence, which repeats the annotation.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how the optional flags change the payload, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: no indication of what a stack identifier looks like in the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the non-obvious trigger for projectPath ('when the MCP server is not running from the project root'), which the schema text alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the project's stacks') plus the returned payload ('with their resource counts'), which immediately separates it from mutation siblings like stack_assign. The explicit redirect to resource_list resolves the only realistic ambiguity.

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?

Names the alternative tool ('Use resource_list for the resources themselves') and gives a concrete condition for setting projectPath. It does not cover when-not-to-use cases beyond that, but for a simple read-list tool the routing guidance is sufficient.

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