tech_stack_detect

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it makes HTTP requests, whether it is read-only, or how it handles unreachable domains.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only one parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits behavioral details that would be helpful for an agent (e.g., network usage) making it slightly incomplete.

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 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'domain'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond indicating a website domain, lacking constraints like format or examples (e.g., 'example.com' without protocol).

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 verb 'detect' and the resource 'technology stack of a website', listing specific components like web server, frameworks, CMS, CDN, analytics, and security headers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like full_recon, or on prerequisites such as requiring a live website. The description does not include any context about when not to use it.

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