Stack Gems

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description usefully adds behavior beyond them: entries are ranked free/open-source first, each carries a verdict and a 'Catch', and there is an automatic fallback to search. With no output schema, disclosing the shape of returned entries is genuinely valuable.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, then layers ranking rule, output contents, and fallback. Nothing is wasted, though the packing of four distinct facts into one sentence is on the edge of overload.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: what a result set contains (verdict, Catch), ordering rules, and fallback behavior. The unmentioned limit parameter is the only meaningful omission.

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 50%: use_case is described in the schema, limit is not. The description supplies category examples for use_case but does not mention limit, its default of 10 or its cap of 25, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema's own examples (which overlap: 'self-hosted auth', 'kubernetes').

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 gives a specific verb+resource: a ranked shortlist for a use case or category, with concrete examples ('vector database', 'coding agents') and an explicit note that free/open-source entries rank first. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_alternatives or search_gems beyond the fallback remark.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a use case or category' and the fallback note 'falls back to search when no list matches', which hints at the relationship to search_gems. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_alternatives or list_categories, so the guidance stays implicit.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real content: results are filtered to same-category free/open-source tools and include a 'verdict' and a 'Catch'. It does not mention result capping or pagination despite the limit parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary payload ('alternatives to a tool from the same category') front-loaded before the input-domain note. Nothing restates the tool name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of explaining the return shape, and it partially does so via 'verdict and Catch'. However, the absence of any note on result limits/paging (with a default limit of 8 and max 15) leaves a gap for a lookup tool.

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 50%: slug has an example, but limit (default 8, max 15) is undocumented anywhere. The description adds that slug accepts any catalog slug, which partially compensates for the slug side but leaves limit semantics unexplained.

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 states a specific resource and scope: alternatives to a tool, filtered to the same category and to free/open-source options. That is clearly distinct from siblings like search_gems or get_gem, although it never names an alternative sibling to route against.

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?

'Works for any slug in the catalog' implies the valid input domain and therefore the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling tool (e.g. best_for) for related questions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned content (verdict, license, repo health, best-of list, alternatives) in the absence of an output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource identified immediately and no filler. Every clause enumerates a distinct part of the returned review.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately carries the burden of describing return content, which it does in useful detail. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to siblings like get_alternatives and search_gems.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'slug' including its example and provenance. The description's 'by slug' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('review of one tool by slug') and enumerates what the review covers (good, the Catch, verdict, license, repo health). An agent can tell it fetches a single full review rather than a search, but the mention of 'links to ... alternatives' overlaps with the sibling get_alternatives, so differentiation is not fully crisp.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool. The only workflow hint ('from search_gems') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent must infer that a slug is obtained elsewhere first.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the returned vocabulary (categories, best-of lists with counts, tags with counts), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns and closing with the practical follow-up action. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what comes back and how to use it. It does not describe the exact response structure (e.g., object shape or field names), which is a minor gap given the absence of an 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of slugs refers to returned values used as filters elsewhere, not to input parameters, so there is nothing extra the description could meaningfully add on this dimension.

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?

Enumerates the exact resources returned — stacks (categories), best-of lists with counts, and the tag vocabulary with counts — which is more specific than the title alone. It implies a listing/read operation without naming a verb explicitly, but the content scope is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like search_gems or get_gem.

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?

"Use the slugs as filters in search_gems" explains the downstream purpose of the output and links to one sibling, which implies this is a discovery step before searching. It does not state when to call this tool versus best_for or get_alternatives, so usage is only partially guided.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: filters compose with AND, and specifically what each hit returns (verdict plus the first sentence of the Catch). It omits pagination/limit behavior and ordering semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by matching behavior and return shape. No filler, though the domain-specific term "Catch" is used without definition.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description usefully covers both what gets searched and what comes back. It could say more about limiting/paging results and default sort behavior, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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 57%, so the description must carry some load, and it does: it enumerates the fields query matches against (name, tagline, verdict, Catch, subcategory, tags) and explains that filter parameters combine with AND, which the schema does not state. Sorting semantics and pricing/category interplay are left to the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the Stack Gems catalog of reviewed developer tools), plus the fields matched. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like best_for, get_alternatives, get_gem, or list_categories, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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 says filters combine with AND but never states when to use this tool versus get_gem, get_alternatives, or best_for, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name and verb.

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