detect_stack

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it reads files (implied read-only) but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The informal tone 'Spies' may mislead about secrecy.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers the core purpose without extraneous words. It includes examples for clarity. However, its brevity sacrifices important details, balancing conciseness with completeness.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks information about return values, error conditions, or behavior when files are absent. The examples help but are insufficient for full agent context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing example files but does not elaborate on the parameters 'dirPath' or 'excludePath' beyond their schema types. No added meaning beyond schema.

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 'Spies' and identifies the resource 'technology stack' by reading package manager files. It lists examples, giving clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_patterns', but the focus on package manager files helps distinguish it.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_code' or 'audit_security'. The description does not specify prerequisites or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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