tech_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes scanning files and inspecting contents, but does not disclose if modifications occur (it is read-only), error handling, or side effects. The return dict is listed, but behavioral details like path validation are missing.

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 concise, front-loads the main purpose, and includes Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more succinct.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the input and details the return dict (languages, frameworks, databases, etc.). This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains the 'path' parameter as 'Filesystem path to the repo root', adding meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the schema gap, though no other parameters exist.

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: detect a project's technology stack from manifests and config files. It lists specific files and inspection details, distinguishing it from siblings which deal with file size, todos, git logs, health, and stats.

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 implies use for tech stack detection, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools have distinct purposes, so no direct competition, but no 'when-not' or alternative guidance is provided.

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