detect_language_framework

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

No annotations exist, so the description must compensate. However, it only states the detection function and reveals no behavioral traits such as execution context, latency, side effects, or security implications. The agent cannot assess safety or performance expectations.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While terse, it efficiently conveys the core purpose, earning a high score for conciseness despite lacking depth.

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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description omits details like supported languages/frameworks, error handling, and the role of the file_path parameter. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect 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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no additional clarification is needed.

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 detects programming language and test framework from source code, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_tests or validate_test_contract which have 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, when not to, or mention any alternative tools among the siblings. The agent receives no hints about prerequisites or scenarios for using this tool.

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