Recommend a full project 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. It discloses that the stack is from the 'Vibe Code catalog' and gives a curated pick per concern. However, it does not detail the return format, whether the recommendation is deterministic, or any side effects like rate limits. For a recommendation tool, this is acceptable but could be more transparent.

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 two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence and adds context in the second. Every sentence 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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and output concept adequately. It could clarify whether the output is a single stack or multiple options, but 'one curated pick per concern' suggests a single recommendation. Overall, it provides enough context for an AI agent to understand use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it calls 'need' a 'free-text need' and reiterates the platform enum. This does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 name and title clearly indicate the tool returns a stack recommendation. The description specifies it returns 'a coherent end-to-end stack' with curated picks per concern, and mentions the optional 'need' parameter and platform choice. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'route_project' or 'search_tools' which have different purposes.

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 the tool is used to get a full stack recommendation, optionally biased by a free-text need and a platform choice. It provides clear context on when to use it but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings. However, the uniqueness of the tool among siblings is implied.

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