start_tech_stack_scan

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

The description adds async behavior, polling mechanism, and scan record creation beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It covers state change and typical duration, no contradictions.

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?

Concise at ~50 words, front-loaded with action, logically structured with detection categories, return info, timing, and side effect. No fluff.

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?

Complete for a 1-param async tool: explains purpose, detection scope, return value, polling method, and typical duration. No missing context.

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% with domain parameter already described adequately. Description adds no new parameter meaning but reinforces the domain scanning purpose.

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 starts an async tech-stack detection on any domain, listing specific detection categories (hosting, frameworks, CMS, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tech_stack_scan and other start_* scans.

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 advises using this tool for tech-stack detection, explains it returns a scanId for polling, and mentions typical completion time, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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