List Technologies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it clarifies that the output is 'technology IDs' (not full technology details) and that these IDs are 'valid' and 'for use with other tools,' which helps the agent understand the tool's role in a workflow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what it does, and the second explains why it's important, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the output format ('technology IDs') and their purpose, though it doesn't detail the return structure (e.g., list format), which is a minor gap since there's no output schema. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and description). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all available technology IDs'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's 'for use with other tools' and 'essential for discovering valid technology identifiers.' This differentiates it from analysis, comparison, or recommendation tools in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'for use with other tools' and 'essential for discovering valid technology identifiers.' It implies an alternative approach (not using this tool) would lack valid IDs, and it distinguishes usage from siblings like analyze_tech or recommend_stack by focusing on ID discovery rather than analysis or recommendation.

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