detect_enhanced_frameworks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'comprehensive detection' and lists categories, omitting details about scan depth, caching behavior, return format, or limitations. The force_refresh parameter hints at caching but is not explained.

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 sentence, very concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., key info front-loaded) and does not earn its place by providing significant value beyond the schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, default behavior, or when to use force_refresh versus caching. The agent would lack necessary context for reliable invocation.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing categories, which matches the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it performs comprehensive framework detection across six categories (web, mobile, desktop, game, ML/AI, cloud). The verb 'detect' and resource 'frameworks' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_cross_language_apis' or 'detect_project_tooling', which overlap in domain.

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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