prd_suggest_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns recommendations with justifications, which is adequate, but does not disclose whether it uses AI, calls external APIs, or has any side effects. It is neither contradictory nor highly informative.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality without any extraneous information. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise.

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 the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not specify the format of the returned stack or justifications, which would help the agent use the response. The description is minimal but covers the basic function.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it summarizes the usage but does not elaborate on how 'features' or 'constraints' are processed. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: given requirements, suggest a technology stack of AINative services, APIs, and SDKs with justifications. It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('technology stack'), and differentiates from sibling tools like prd_generate (which generates PRDs) and prd_check_api_refs (which checks API references).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, situations where it is appropriate, or when to use sibling tools like prd_check_api_refs or prd_generate instead.

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