Detect project stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no additional context beyond that. It does not disclose what markers are scanned for, whether detection is recursive, or what the return format is. With no output schema, the description carries more burden but fails to provide behavioral details.

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 sentence, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple detection tool, with every word serving a purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'detect' returns (e.g., a list of detected stacks, a boolean, or details about markers). It also omits context about 'allowed root' and any session setup. The simple schema and strong annotations help, but the description is too thin to be fully complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter projectPath with a clear description ('Absolute path to a project directory inside an allowed root'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is high, 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 the specific verb 'Detect' with the resource 'common stack markers' for a 'project directory', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file or list_project_files. However, 'stack markers' is somewhat ambiguous and could be more specific about what is detected (e.g., languages, frameworks, package manifests).

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., using list_allowed_repositories first) or exclusion cases. The bare description leaves the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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