detect_frameworks

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source for behavioral expectations. It discloses that the tool reports attack-surface locations, which is useful beyond a simple framework list. However, it does not mention whether the code is stored, transmitted externally, or if the operation is non-destructive; these are typical disclosures expected for code-analyzing tools.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every clause adds value—'Fingerprint the web framework(s)', examples, attack-surface reporting, and the inline-send instruction. No redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core function, expected inputs, and high-level outputs (framework names and attack-surface locations). It could elaborate on output format or what 'attack surface' includes, but the description is sufficiently contextual for an agent to select and call the tool effectively.

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 schema already describes the 'source' parameter as 'Source code to fingerprint' (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning by saying 'Send the code inline,' which reinforces the same concept. Per the rubric, baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not significantly elevate param understanding beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fingerprint') and clearly identifies the resource ('web framework(s) in a source file'), with concrete examples (Flask, FastAPI, Django). It also differentiates from siblings like scan_code by focusing on framework identification and attack-surface mapping, not general scanning or remediation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to identify frameworks in a source file and locate request-handling attack surface. It includes a direct usage instruction ('Send the code inline'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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