codix.stack.recommend

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits but only states the input-driven purpose. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, whether inputs are required, or any edge cases. The verb 'Recommend' suggests a non-mutating action, but otherwise transparency is minimal.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and inputs. There is no filler or redundant elaboration, making it maximally concise.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the recommendation output contains, how to handle omitted parameters, or how inputs influence the result, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, and the description simply restates the four parameter names in a sentence without adding meaning about their enum values, optionality, or how they affect the recommendation. It provides no semantic value beyond the property names already present in the schema.

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 function: recommending a stack based on project type, budget, team level, and hosting target. The verb 'Recommend' and noun 'stack' are specific, and the listed inputs distinguish it from broader tools like architecture.get. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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 implies usage when a stack recommendation is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like architecture.get or template.get. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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