list_stacks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the basic list operation but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, performance considerations, or filtering behavior). However, 'List' clearly implies a non-mutating operation, so it is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no waste, perfectly adhering to the principle that every sentence should earn its place.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with three optional parameters fully described in the schema and an output schema present. The description is minimal but sufficient for overall understanding, though it could briefly mention the filtering/sorting capabilities to be fully self-contained. The existing schema compensates for this gap.

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%, and each parameter (filter, sort_by, include_status) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The schema does the heavy lifting.

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 existing Docker stacks' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Docker stacks'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_stack, manage_stack, and list_dns_records. The scope 'all existing' is unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this tool to view existing Docker stacks. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but for a simple read-only list operation, the description adequately implies its use case. With siblings focused on other resources (DNS) or actions (create/manage), the intended usage is obvious.

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