get_backend_stack_recommendation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Recommends' a stack, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, output format, or any constraints. The description is silent on whether this is a safe call, what the return structure looks like, or if it has any rate limits. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, information-dense sentence that efficiently lists the technology options and the selecting criteria. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key action ('Recommends') and subject are front-loaded. It earns a high score for conciseness, though it could be structured slightly better with explicit separation of alternatives.

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 recommendation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the expected output (e.g., a single stack vs. a breakdown), any constraints or limitations, or how to interpret the recommendation. It also lacks guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling 'get_free_developer_stack_recommendation'. Given the simplicity of the tool, a bit more context would make it fully usable.

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%, with both 'project_type' and 'expected_scale' already documented in the schema. The tool description adds a high-level link to 'project scale, speed, and database requirements', which loosely maps to the parameters but does not provide syntax, formatting, or examples beyond what the schema already gives. Since the schema is thorough, the description adds minimal value, but does not contradict or omit necessary semantics.

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 it 'Recommends high-performance backend architecture' and lists specific technologies (PocketBase, Appwrite, Express, FastAPI, PostgreSQL + Prisma/Drizzle). It indicates the decision criteria (project scale, speed, database requirements), giving a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_free_developer_stack_recommendation', relying on the word 'high-performance' as a subtle differentiator rather than naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternatives. The description mentions input criteria but does not address exclusions, prerequisites, or how this differs from other recommendation tools like 'get_free_developer_stack_recommendation'. An agent receives no help choosing between this and similar tools.

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