tech_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: it declares a single read-only HTTP GET, passive identification via response headers/cookies/body/meta tags, and version disclosure with CVE relevance. It does not discuss redirects, rate limits, or authorization, but the core safety profile and side effects of the tool are clear.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a behavior paragraph, then neatly separated Args and Returns sections. Each sentence provides useful information, with only the minor repetition of 'from one HTTP GET' and 'One read-only HTTP GET' as slight 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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description serves as the sole documentation and is thorough enough: it covers what the tool does, how it works, all parameters, return fields, and the error field on fetch failure. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: host with an example, port with default behavior conditional on use_ssl, use_ssl with its default, and timeout in seconds. It also documents the return dict structure, which is entirely absent from the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Fingerprint the technology stack behind a website from one HTTP GET.' The detailed list of detected categories (web server, CDN/WAF, language, framework, CMS, analytics) makes the tool's role clear, but it never explicitly names a sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 conveys the appropriate context by emphasizing 'Passively identifies' and 'One read-only HTTP GET,' which suggests when this tool is safe and suitable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as port_scan or http_headers_audit, leaving the agent to infer placement among siblings.

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