detect_framework

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying safety and side effects. The verb 'detects' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the project or disclose any limitations (e.g., does it require the project to be loaded?). It adds some context by listing frameworks, but does not fully address behavioral expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical list of frameworks. It is appropriately concise and contains no fluff or repetition. Every element (verb, resource, output candidates) 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?

For a simple detection tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the input and the expected output categories. However, it does not describe the exact return format or what happens if the project is not loaded, which could be a minor gap. Overall, it suffices for an agent to use 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% for the only parameter ('name' described as 'Name or path of the loaded project'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to this parameter; it simply restates the purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter, yet the description does not enrich it.

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 action ('Detects the framework') and the specific resource ('of the loaded project'), and it enumerates the possible detected frameworks (Vue, Nuxt, Angular, Express, Fastify, Node, plain). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze particular frameworks or perform other project tasks.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should call this when it needs to know the project's framework, presumably to select framework-specific sibling tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., 'use after loading a project'). The context is clear but not fully articulated.

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