detect_tech_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies network fetching and page inspection (maxPagesPerDomain, followSubdomains) but never states latency, rate limits, failure behavior for unreachable sites, or that detection is heuristic/best-effort — all material for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, then the detection scope. No filler. The long comma-separated enumeration is dense but every item earns its place by defining coverage.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers capability but says nothing about the return shape (e.g. one result row per site across categories), error handling, or multi-URL result structure. Minimum viable but with real gaps.

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 the schema already explains url, urls, categories, followSubdomains and maxPagesPerDomain fully. The description's category list merely mirrors the enum rather than adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Fingerprint') and resource ('a website's technology stack') and then enumerates the detected categories (CMS, analytics, payments, etc.), which makes the tool unmistakable against siblings like read_url or crawl_site_markdown that operate on the same resources for different purposes.

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 on when to prefer this over siblings such as read_url or company_profile, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated. The only routing information (urls overriding url) lives in the schema, not the description.

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