tooltrace_tech_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it 'returns categorized detections with confidence levels'; it does not state that the tool performs network requests, is read-only, has credit costs, or the implications of rendering modes. These gaps are significant even though the schema describes render credits.

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?

Two sentences, with the action verb and resource front-loaded, followed by an efficient list of categories. There is no filler or redundant phrasing; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of what is returned (categorized detections with confidence levels) and names the common detection areas. However, it is minimal for a 4-parameter tool and lacks behavioral/contextual nuance like rendering behavior and credit implications, though those are partially covered by the input schema.

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 already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Detect the technology stack of a website') and enumerates concrete detection categories (CMS, frameworks, JavaScript libraries, etc.). This scope clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like tooltrace_sitemap or tooltrace_metadata without needing to open their schemas.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools are available in context signals, but the description never references them or suggests conditions for selecting this tool.

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