detect_frameworks_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it does with the workingDirectory, or any error conditions. While it mentions return values, it fails to disclose side effects or operational details, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Detect') and clearly states the outputs, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return values, but it lacks parameter semantics and explicit usage context relative to siblings. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete, especially given the missing annotations and parameter clarification.

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 has one required parameter, workingDirectory, but the description never mentions it or provides any guidance on its format, semantics, or expected values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameter, which it does not. This leaves the agent without critical input information.

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' and names the resource ('available mutation testing frameworks and project language'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_mutation_tests_tool. It also explicitly states what it returns (frameworks with confidence scores and a recommendation), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool should be used to identify frameworks before running mutation tests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or the relationship to sibling tools like run_mutation_tests_tool, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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