Detect the site framework

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 'unknown' fallback when no signal exists, that evidence is listed alongside the verdict, and that detection is shared/identical with scan_page's fields. It does not discuss failure modes for unreachable URLs, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One dense but well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and the two outputs, then chips in the evidence/interop note. Every clause (field names, example values, 'unknown' sentinel, scan_page equivalence) earns its place.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately substitutes by naming the two returned fields with representative values and the sentinel for no-signal cases, plus the downstream consumer. Nothing critical is missing for a low-complexity detection tool, though error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required `url` parameter already documented at 100% schema coverage ('URL to inspect'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, protocol, or normalization details for the URL, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detect a page's stack') and enumerates the two returned fields with concrete example values, so the agent knows exactly what it obtains without opening a schema. It also distinguishes itself from scan_page by noting that sibling reports the same two fields from the same detection.

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?

Gives a clear use case: obtain the `framework` value to pass into generate_ai_fix, and clarifies overlap with scan_page rather than duplicating it. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions (e.g. use scan_html for raw HTML, or that scan_page is preferable when a full scan is already needed), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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