detectar_stack_atual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only, automatic detection behavior and enumerates the detected values, but it does not state failure modes, return shape, or whether any Docker state is required.

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 entire description is a single focused sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and listing the specific detection targets.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and know the result domain: stack technology and Docker monorepo root. It could be more complete with return-format details, but the invocation surface is trivial.

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?

The input schema is empty and has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter complexity is zero.

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 the specific verb 'Detecta' and identifies the resource: the folder's technology (NestJS/React/Angular) and the Docker monorepo root. This makes the tool's function clear and separates it from management/browser-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance is provided. The context is implied: call it when you need automatic stack/root detection with zero parameters, but alternatives such as gerenciar_docker_monorepo are not contrasted.

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