Get Tech Stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Retrieve' implies a side-effect-free read and 'configured' hints the data comes from project configuration rather than live scanning. It also names the returned content (versions and notes), which helps, but it omits where configuration is sourced from, project scoping, and what happens when no stack is configured.

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 with zero filler: verb, resource, enumerated contents, and returned attributes. Nothing redundant or misleading.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, and the parenthetical partially substitutes for the missing output schema by listing what comes back. However, it never states scope (which project/workspace the stack belongs to) or the empty-state behavior, leaving gaps the agent cannot resolve elsewhere.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to add; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Nothing in the description needs to explain argument behavior.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('configured technology stack') and enumerates what it covers: languages, frameworks, databases, infrastructure. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_specs or get_project_rules, but the name-resource pairing is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like get_specs, get_project_rules, or get_context, nor any stated precondition such as requiring an initialized project. The agent must infer usage 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.