choose_technology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It transparently reveals that the tool sets session state, which will scope subsequent operations. It could say more about persistence or clearing the state, but the core stateful behavior is disclosed.

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, purposeful sentences. The optional/legacy caveat is front-loaded, and the alternative workflow is stated without redundant detail. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter state-setting tool, the description covers purpose, side effect, legacy status, and an alternative approach. It does not explain how the state interacts with siblings like current_technology or how to clear it, but the core context an agent needs is present.

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 the input schema already documents both 'name' and 'identifier'. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'framework/technology', so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb, 'Select', names the resource, 'framework/technology', and states its purpose: scoping subsequent searches and documentation lookups. The '(Optional / Legacy)' label and the mention of direct framework passing clearly separate it from sibling lookup tools.

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 explicitly says when not to use it: in most cases, agents should pass the framework directly to search_symbols or get_documentation instead of setting session state. It lacks a precise statement of the exact conditions where choose_technology is preferred, but the legacy/optional framing provides clear context.

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