sdlc_get_tech_preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return format (Markdown-formatted summary) and the behavior when preferences haven't been set (a message). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a list of returned fields, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is slightly redundant by mentioning the returned fields twice (once in prose and once in the Returns line), but it remains compact and readable.

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, read-only tool with one parameter, the description is adequately complete. It explains the return value and the fallback message when preferences are unset. It does not discuss error cases like a non-existent project, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It states 'project_id (str): UUID of the project', which provides basic meaning but omits guidance on how to obtain the ID (which was present in the schema's own description). The description adds minimal value beyond naming the parameter and its type.

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 fetches technology stack preferences for a project, listing specific fields (frontend, backend, database, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling tools like sdlc_get_project_summary or sdlc_get_screens. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'technology stack preferences' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when tech stack preferences are needed for a project, and the schema's parameter description references sdlc_list_projects as a prerequisite, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.