Tech Fingerprint

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the analysis method (HTTP headers + HTML) and the return structure, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences: first explains what the tool does, second provides usage context and return format. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, methodology, usage guidance, rate limits, and return format (with a hint at the structure). There is no missing critical information for an AI agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'domain', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect website technology stack' with specific examples (CMS, frameworks, etc.) and methodology (HTTP headers + HTML analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'audit_domain' by noting this is for passive reconnaissance, while a full audit should use that tool.

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 explicitly says when to use ('passive reconnaissance') and when not to ('for full audit use audit_domain'), providing an alternative tool. It also includes rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr), guiding usage expectations.

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