Analyze Technology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds value by specifying the analysis outputs (scores, strengths, weaknesses, compatible technologies), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what '6-dimension scores' entail.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs without unnecessary words. Every element (analysis, scores, strengths, weaknesses, compatible technologies) earns its place by clarifying the tool's function.

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 annotations covering safety and scope, and schema coverage is 100%, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, without an output schema, the description could better detail the return format (e.g., structure of '6-dimension scores'), and it lacks usage context compared to siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides about 'technology' and 'context', so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra details.

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 performs 'Detailed analysis of a technology' with specific outputs (6-dimension scores, strengths, weaknesses, compatible technologies), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_techs' or 'list_technologies', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_techs' or 'recommend_stack', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context parameter hints at different use cases but isn't explained in the description itself.

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