Get technologies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the returned data is untrusted content from scanned systems (a prompt-injection caution) and results are paged, which the annotations do not convey.

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 a compact parenthetical field list and a trailing safety note. Every clause carries information about scope, filtering, paging or trust, with no filler.

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 four fully documented parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, return fields and data trust. The one gap is that the response envelope (page.next_offset) is only implied via the offset schema rather than described.

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%, so host exactness, limit/offset bounds and workspace format are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the optional exact-host filter and paging concept, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the structured 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read the web technologies Sn1per detected in a workspace') and enumerates the returned fields (host, port, technology, version, source), so the agent knows exactly what this yields. Siblings like get_ports and get_subdomains are not mentioned, so differentiation relies on the resource name 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?

Implies usage through 'optionally for one exact host, with paging', which hints at the filtered and paged cases. It does not state when to prefer this over get_ports or get_findings, nor any exclusion, leaving selection to inference.

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