Compare Technologies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds useful context about the output format ('per-dimension winners and compatibility matrix'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'closed-world' means in practice beyond what annotations provide.

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 functionality and includes key constraints (2-4 technologies) and output details. Every word earns its place with zero waste or 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?

For a read-only comparison tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the output format but doesn't clarify how 'winners' are determined or what dimensions are compared. Without an output schema, more detail about return values would be helpful, though annotations cover the safety profile sufficiently.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (technologies array with constraints, context enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'per-dimension winners' means in relation to parameters or provide examples of technology names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a 'side-by-side comparison of 2-4 technologies' with specific outputs ('per-dimension winners and compatibility matrix'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_tech' or 'recommend_stack', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'analyze_tech' or 'recommend_stack'. It mentions the 2-4 technology constraint and context parameter, but doesn't explain when this comparison is appropriate versus other analysis or recommendation tools in the sibling list.

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