View Session Stack Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the four categories of return data (Components, Config, Pricing, Phase Indicators) and explaining phase indicators as part of workflow state. It does not introduce contradictions and provides meaningful insight beyond 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 well-structured with a clear opening line, bullet-point details for each return category, and usage instructions. It is informative without being overly verbose. Minor improvements could be made by trimming redundant formatting, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the structure of the response (Components, Config, Pricing, Phase Indicators) and provides usage guidance. It covers all critical aspects for an inspection tool but does not include potential error scenarios or response format nuances, which is acceptable for a read-only tool with annotations.

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. The description adds value by explaining that session_id must come from convoopen and explicitly noting the token suffix requirement ('never strip it when summarizing'). For job_id, it clarifies optional usage. This context goes beyond the schema's pattern and description fields.

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 explicitly states 'View the current infrastructure stack for a session', using a specific verb (view) and resource (infrastructure stack). It provides detailed breakdown of what is returned (components, config, pricing, phase indicators), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like convoinspect or convoopen by focusing on the session's infrastructure design state.

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 includes explicit usage examples: 'Use this tool when the user asks 'what is my current stack?', 'show my infrastructure', 'what have I selected?', or similar questions.' It also mentions the prerequisite of session_id from convoopen. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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