get_technologies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses basic behavior (returns top 100 without slug, companies with slug) but omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid slugs. The 'page' parameter exists but its usage and default page size are 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 consists of two concise, well-structured sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is included.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main functional behavior. It explains both input modes and their corresponding outputs. However, it lacks details on pagination limits, company count per page, and the structure of returned data, which 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by providing examples for 'slug' (e.g., react, stripe) and mentioning pagination for 'page', but does not clarify pagination specifics such as items per page or page number limits. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides marginal added meaning.

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 verb 'browse' and resource 'technologies'. It distinguishes two modes based on the presence of a slug, providing specific behavior for each mode. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_usage' or 'lookup_company', which could also involve technologies.

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 when to use the tool (without slug for top technologies, with slug for specific technology usage) but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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