detect_framework

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the detection action but omits details about output format (e.g., returns a list or single framework) or any latency considerations. Still, for a simple read-only inspection, the level of disclosure is adequate.

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 clearly states the core action, provides examples, and gives usage guidance—no extraneous words.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, trivial domain), the description covers all essential aspects: what it detects, which frameworks, and how to use it with a sibling tool. No further documentation is needed.

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 single parameter 'url' is described in the schema as 'URL to inspect', and the tool description adds no further semantics. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 detects which framework/stack a page uses, listing specific examples (Tailwind, MUI, Bootstrap, WordPress, Next.js, plain CSS). It also ties to a sibling tool (generate_ai_fix), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before generate_ai_fix to get framework-appropriate code, providing clear context and guidance for when to invoke it relative to an alternative.

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