recon_technology_stack

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (detect) without details on method, side effects, or output format. It doesn't mention whether this is read-only, what data is examined, or what the response looks like.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return values or behavior. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool will output (e.g., a list of technologies, versions, confidence scores). Given the simplicity, the description is minimally viable but 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the description correctly implies no input is needed. Baseline 4 applies due to no parameters.

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 detects technologies/frameworks/CMS on the current page, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like dom_analysis and enumerate_forms by focusing on tech stack detection.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for tech stack detection but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like security_headers_check or dom_analysis.

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