find_tech_stack

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint (true) and destructiveHint (false), so the description is not required to restate safety. The description adds value by specifying the scope of detection (programming languages, frameworks, databases, etc.) and the context (tech talks/tutorials), which are not covered by 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 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding 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?

The description explains what the tool finds and typical use cases. However, it does not describe the return format or any limitations (e.g., language support, accuracy). With no output schema, a brief note on output would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (videoId and language). The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('technologies, frameworks, libraries, and tools mentioned in a video'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_code_snippets (which extracts code) and find_github_links (which finds URLs) by focusing on tech stack detection from any mention in the video.

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 implies usage for tech talks and tutorials but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_code_snippets or search_in_transcript. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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