listSitesStacks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, empty-site behavior, or what a returned stack record contains — so it contributes almost nothing the agent could not infer.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing the stated purpose.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with all three parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. It is still thin: it does not clarify what a 'switch stack' entity is or how results relate to the stack-detail sibling, which an agent selecting among 80+ switch tools would benefit from.

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 100%: page, pageSize ranges and the siteId default/pattern are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list switch stacks) and scopes it to a site, so an agent can tell it is a collection-listing call. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as getSwitchStackDetail, getOswStackLagList, or getStackNetworkList, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this to enumerate stacks versus getSwitchStackDetail to drill into one, and no prerequisite or pagination context is given. The schema does mention listSites for discovering site IDs, but that is a schema note, not description guidance.

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