compare_tech

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior burden on its own. It discloses the core behavior—side-by-side scoring across 8 criteria and producing a ranking table with a winner—but doesn't explain scoring methodology, ties, unknown-technology handling, or whether it draws on external data. These gaps leave some behavior opaque.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that states the action and the outcome with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the key constraint (2 or more) appears immediately.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the input requirement and the returned artifact (ranking table with winner). It doesn't describe edge cases or scoring details, but the schema covers parameters and the behavior is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents both parameters, including the technologies array and the criteria array with its default of all 8. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reaffirming the 2-or-more constraint and 8-criteria default, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Compare'), states the resource ('2 or more technologies'), and defines the output ('ranking table with winner') plus the fixed 8-criteria framework. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like recommend_stack or analyze_compatibility, which imply different actions and outputs.

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 direct side-by-side technology comparison, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative-tool guidance are provided.

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