portainer_stack_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses polling behavior, termination conditions (healthy, paused on failure, timeout), and the return structure. It also mentions timeout clamping (5..PORTAINER_LONG_TIMEOUT), which is a useful behavioral detail. It does not cover error handling or auth, but for a wait operation this is adequate.

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-structured: a purpose sentence, a behavior sentence, and an Args list. No filler. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section is formatted for easy scanning.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values beyond what it does (mentions converged, reason, timed_out). It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and all parameters. It even names the polling target (portainer_stack_status). For a wait tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 document parameters. The Args section does this well: stack_name (namespace/project), timeout_seconds (default, clamp), endpoint_id (default if omitted). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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-resource pair: 'Wait for a stack's rollout to converge after stack_update.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like portainer_stack_inspect or portainer_stack_update, and even mentions the return fields (converged, reason, timed_out) which further clarifies its role.

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 clearly states the trigger context: 'after stack_update.' This tells an agent when to invoke it. It also references polling portainer_stack_status, giving a hint of dependency. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., portainer_service_wait for services), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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