recommend_dual_stack

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the output shape: two stack options, comparison table, advantages, cost/time differences, and a hybrid recommendation. It does not omit side effects or require assumptions; the only small flaw is the unexplained 'nhanh' token, which slightly muddies the Module option.

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 short and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. The colon-style enumeration of output components is efficient, though the unexplained 'nhanh' and the incomplete 'Module (SaaS/SDK plug-in, ...)' phrase introduce slight readability noise.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful summary of return content but does not explain how inputs (project_type, scale, features) influence the recommendation or how this differentiates from the many sibling planning tools. It is adequate but leaves routing and input-behavior details to inference.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but all 10 parameters already have descriptive text in the schema; therefore no semantics are missing.

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 identifies a specific action ('Recommend TWO stacks side-by-side') and a concrete resource ('Module ... vs Standard ...'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state how it differs from recommend_stack/compare_tech, though the 'TWO stacks' phrasing provides some implicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to select this tool over sibling tools such as recommend_stack, compare_tech, or smart_recommend. The description covers what the tool produces (comparison table, hybrid recommendation) but not the conditions that should trigger its use or when a single-stack recommendation would be preferred.

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