util_tech_detection

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns confidence levels, which is useful, but it does not state whether analysis is passive, whether JavaScript rendering is involved, or whether only public URLs are accepted. For a non-destructive detection tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states the action, the scope, and the output format without any filler. Every clause adds useful information and nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 one-parameter detection tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the nature of the returned data (technologies with confidence levels). It could mention version detection or limitations, but the tool is simple enough that the agent can call it correctly with the current description.

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% and the only parameter, 'url', is described as 'URL to analyze'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about accepted URL formats or behavior, but with a single simple parameter and full schema coverage, 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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and a clear resource ('technologies used by a website'), then lists the concrete categories it covers: CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDN, web servers, and programming languages. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like util_whois_lookup or util_headers_analysis.

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 when to use the tool but never explicitly states it, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. With siblings like util_headers_analysis that could also provide server-related signals, there is no guidance on choosing this tool over those options.

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