get_tech_stack_scan

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description details behavioral traits: returns status during execution, partial detection under behavioral protection, recommended polling interval, and explicitly states read-only. This adds significant context for the agent.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes valuable information: return types, edge cases, polling guidance, and safety. No superfluous content.

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?

Given the complexity of a tech-stack scan (status, results, partial detection), the description covers all relevant return scenarios, edge cases, and usage recommendations. Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when.

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 100% for the single parameter 'scanId', which is already described in the schema. The description does not add additional semantic information or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'status or full results of a tech-stack scan'. It specifies the key input (scanId) and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on tech-stack scans. It also describes both running and completed states, and the partial detection scenario, leaving no ambiguity.

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 for retrieving tech-stack scan results, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like other scanning tools. It provides a recommended poll interval, which is helpful, but lacks when-not-to-use guidance or explicit sibling differentiation.

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