Recommend Stack (Demo)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds useful context about the 'once per day' rate limit and 'no account required' authentication aspect, which aren't in the annotations. However, it doesn't describe output format or error behavior. With annotations providing core safety info, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers purpose and limitations, the second contrasts with Pro features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters with enums), annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage limits, and upgrade path. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of recommendations), which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 having clear enum-based descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., how projectType and scale affect recommendations). Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is applied.

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 provides 'tech stack recommendations' and returns 'optimal technology for each category based on deterministic scoring,' which specifies the verb (recommend) and resource (technology stacks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recommend_stack' or 'analyze_tech,' which appears to be a similar recommendation tool without the demo limitation.

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 explicitly states 'once per day, no account required' and contrasts this with 'unlimited access, priorities, constraints, and AI-generated narratives' available via a Pro upgrade. This provides clear when-to-use guidance (free, limited use) and when-not-to-use (when more features are needed), with an alternative (upgrading to Pro) mentioned.

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