web_techstack

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are directional and not exhaustive, explains the render strategies and their implications, and describes the output fields. It lacks mention of potential errors or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then provides extensive lists of covered technologies. While verbose, every sentence adds value and it is well-structured. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but it remains clear.

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's complexity (no output schema, nested objects), the description comprehensively covers inputs, outputs, and behavior. It describes the output structure (technologies with categories, confidence, version, evidence) and explains the fetch strategies. No critical gaps remain.

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% but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the `render` field's three options (browser, auto, http) with details on when each is appropriate, and clarifies the default. The description transforms a simple parameter into a well-understood choice.

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 what a website is built with, like BuiltWith/Wappalyzer. It specifies the verb 'detect' and resource 'website tech stack', and distinguishes from any sibling tools (none are similar). The long list of covered technologies reinforces its scope.

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 only public pages are supported and to respect terms and robots directives. It explains the render strategy options and defaults, but doesn't contrast with alternatives (no direct sibling). The guidance is clear for correct use.

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