build_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'tool names, trust scores, tiers, and install hints' and is based on 'live trust data'. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or required permissions. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 and well-structured: it states the purpose, how to use, what is returned, and the benefit—all in a few sentences without fluff.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete. It tells what input to provide, what output to expect, and the value. It does not cover constraints like rate limits or auth, but for a recommendation tool, it is sufficient.

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?

The single parameter 'description' has a schema description and the main text adds examples and elaboration (e.g., 'Can be a full sentence or just keywords'). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the extra context pushes it to 4.

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 recommends a vetted stack of trusted tools for a described task. It specifies the action ('recommend'), the resource ('vetted stack'), and the input (task description), distinguishing it from sibling tools that check individual packages or trust scores.

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 'Use this instead of guessing which tools to recommend' and implies when to use it. It contrasts with other tools by saying 'every suggestion is backed by live trust data', but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions. Context is clear given sibling tools focus on individual checks.

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