recommend_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns 1-3 recommendations with reasoning, tradeoffs, and layer suggestions. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or other constraints that might affect usage.

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 that conveys the core function without any superfluous words. It is concise and immediately informative.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, a single sibling), the description is complete. It explains the input needed, the process (recommendation generation), and the expected output (1-3 stacks with reasoning, tradeoffs, and layer suggestions). No further detail is necessary.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description and example for the only parameter 'description'. The tool description reinforces the parameter's purpose. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the tool description adds marginal value beyond the schema by hinting at the output structure.

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's function: given a project description, it returns 1-3 recommended tech stacks with reasoning, tradeoffs, and per-layer suggestions. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_stacks', which likely merely lists available stacks without recommendations.

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 implicitly tells the user when to use this tool: when they need tech stack recommendations for a project. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention when not to use, but the context is clear and the sibling tool provides an alternative for simple listing.

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