get_tech_stack_scan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by explaining the partialDetection flag, why it appears (behavioral protection blocked response headers so hosting/CDN rules could not run), that listed detections are still real, and that totalTechnologies is a floor not a total. It also prescribes reporting behavior (never claim no CDN/managed hosting), which is exactly the kind of hidden-behavior disclosure that prevents downstream misinterpretation.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return states before the partial-scan caveats, and the poll interval is placed last as a practical footnote. It is somewhat long, but every sentence addresses a real failure mode (misreporting partial results), so the length is largely earned.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and it does so thoroughly: status while running, technologies with confidence when complete, and the meaning of partialDetection and totalTechnologies. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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% with a single required scanId parameter already documented with its pattern and origin. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail for the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve status or full results of a tech-stack scan by scanId') and states the two distinct return states (running status vs. detected technologies with confidence scores). An agent can immediately tell this is the polling/read companion to start_tech_stack_scan, whose name is echoed in the scanId param description.

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?

It gives clear operational context (poll while running, results when complete) and an explicit recommended poll interval of 5-10 seconds, plus detailed rules for interpreting PARTIAL results. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when NOT to call it, but the usage context is concrete and actionable.

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