tech_stack_detect

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists what is identified but does not disclose how detection works (e.g., HTTP requests, parsing), whether it is read-only, or any rate limits. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence provides the main action, the second lists specific items identified. Perfectly concise and clear.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers the needed information. It lists what is detected, which is the core output. No gaps given the complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context by saying 'website' implying the domain is a web domain, but does not specify format or constraints beyond the schema's basic type. The single parameter is simple, so this is sufficient.

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's purpose: 'Detect technology stack of a website.' It lists specific categories (web server, frameworks, CMS, CDN, analytics, security headers), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_enumeration or port_scan.

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 on when to use or alternatives. The description implies usage for technology detection, but does not provide exclusions or compare to siblings. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks this direction.

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