get_stack_recommendations

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it performs a 3-way hybrid search (FTS + BGE + CLIP) and returns recommendations mapped to aspects of the problem. It does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or non-mutation, but 'recommend' strongly implies a read-only sweep.

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 a single dense, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the input and purpose, includes a useful example, and adds meaningful algorithmic detail without wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main input, the search approach, and the intent of the output, and the output schema can explain return values. However, it omits the semantics of limit_per_category and provides no guidance on how this tool compares to sibling search/recommendation tools.

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 description gives clear semantics for problem_description, including a concrete example, but says nothing about limit_per_category. With schema description coverage at 0%, the optional parameter's meaning is left entirely to inference from its title and default value.

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 what the tool does: it sweeps the vault via hybrid search and recommends owned packages for a given game/feature description. It is distinct in behavior from siblings like search_owned_assets, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 usage context is implied: provide a game/feature description to get package recommendations. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over search_owned_assets or other sibling tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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