detect_cms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'fingerprints' a website, which implies a read operation without side effects. However, it does not describe how it works (e.g., HTTP requests, response analysis), whether it has any rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb 'Fingerprint' and immediately specifies the objects. It is efficient, contains no unnecessary words, and every part adds value. The parenthetical list of examples is concise yet informative.

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 there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., CMS name, version, platform). It does not, leaving the agent guessing about the response format. For a detection tool used as a precursor to more specific tools (like wordpress_inspector), this lack of output information is a significant gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'url' described as 'The URL to fingerprint'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's property description, so it does not improve understanding of the parameter's usage or constraints beyond what is already structured.

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's purpose: 'Fingerprint the CMS and hosting platform of a website'. It provides specific examples (WordPress, Shopify, Next.js, etc.) making the scope unambiguous. The tool is well-distinguished from siblings that analyze individual aspects (e.g., analyze_html) or focus on a single CMS (wordpress_inspector).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it as a starting point for CMS identification, there is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid it, or how it relates to sibling tools like wordpress_inspector. The usage context is only implicitly inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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