list_stacks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List all stacks' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as return format, authentication requirements, scoping, or whether it's read-only. While listing is generally safe, the description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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, coherent sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no verbose or redundant information, making it extremely concise.

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?

Given the simplicity of a 0-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description 'List all stacks in Portainer' is contextually complete for the core function. However, it could optionally mention any caveats (e.g., whether stacks from all environments are included), but this is not critical for a basic list operation.

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 tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. Per the rubric, 0 params qualifies for a baseline of 4. The description adequately implies no inputs are needed.

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 'List all stacks in Portainer' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (stacks), clearly stating the action and scope ('all'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact resource type, making it unambiguous which tool to select when stacks are needed.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings include similar list tools for other resources, the description doesn't explicitly state the intended context or contrast with tools like inspect_stack or get_stack_file. The usage is implied by the resource name but not explicitly articulated.

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