get_tech_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the identifier priority (project_id > workspace_path > project_name), which is a key behavioral trait for resolution. The verb 'Retrieve' implies read-only, though it never explicitly claims no side effects or mentions error/return behavior.

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 direct opening, a priority note, and a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' section, making it scannable. The bullets are slightly repetitive (e.g., 'consistency' and 'avoid conflicts' overlap), but the overall size is justified by the multi-purpose guidance.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the return value looks like (format, structure, content). It also omits error cases or failure behavior. However, it covers lookup flexibility, identifier priority, and usage scenarios well enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the priority rule for how the three identifier parameters interact, which is not in the schema. It also states any combination works. It does not add new semantic detail for the 'category' parameter, but the identifier interplay is valuable.

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 opening line 'Retrieve the complete technology stack for a project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this read tool from siblings like update_tech_stack (write) and get_project_info (general info). The description goes further to explain flexible lookup via multiple identifiers, reinforcing its purpose.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists concrete scenarios (start of work, adding dependencies, version compatibility, onboarding, consistency) and recommends calling early. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, so it stops short of a full 5.

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