inspect_tech_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'analyzes' package files, suggesting a non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it won't modify files or require special permissions. There is no disclosure of side effects or limitations.

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?

A single, focused sentence states the action, resources, and output. Every part earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with the verb and key object.

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 a 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it reports. It lists specific file types to inspect, which clarifies scope. It could add a note about behavior when no package files are found, but that is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object. The description therefore needs no parameter explanation, and the baseline of 4 applies. The examples of file types give context, but no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 'Analyzes' with clear resources (package files) and outputs (dependencies, frameworks, setup). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_tree or search_codebase by focusing on package files rather than general file structure or code search.

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 usage when one needs the tech stack, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. No sibling tool is referenced, so guidance is only inferred from the purpose.

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