infra_status_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature by using 'List' and explains the stack parameter's effect, default behavior, and naming source (INFRA_STACKS keys). It does not cover errors or permissions, but for a list operation this is reasonably sufficient.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides unique value: output details, parameter behavior, default behavior, and naming source. No redundant or extraneous content appears.

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 one optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool lists, how 'stack' is interpreted, and the default behavior. It appropriately avoids repeating return-value details that are presumably in the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'stack' parameter: it selects the compose project, is optional, defaults to the operator's configured default, and names come from INFRA_STACKS keys. This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('every container in the compose stack') and clarifies the output ('state + status string'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that handle logs, disk, deploy, restart, etc.

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 implies usage for checking container status but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives like infra_logs_tool or service_url_tool. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, though the stack selection guidance is clear.

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