compose_ai_stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'candidate' and 'unknown compatibility', which suggests the result is provisional and highlights compatibility gaps, but it does not explain what the tool returns, how existing_stack or constraints affect the result, or what 'unknown compatibility' concretely means.

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, tight sentence with the core action front-loaded. The second clause is somewhat vague, but there is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations provide a safety profile, the description still leaves critical context missing: parameter semantics are absent, usage versus sibling tools is not addressed, and the meaningful phrase 'unknown compatibility' is undefined. For a tool with five parameters and substantial optional inputs, this is not enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning, but it does not mention business_goal, constraints, existing_stack, locale, or request_id. Only the phrase 'compose a stack' implicitly maps to business_goal; the optional inputs remain semantically unexplained beyond their names.

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 states a specific action ('Compose') and resource ('a candidate open-source AI stack'), and the 'expose unknown compatibility' clause adds a distinct output focus. It is clear enough to separate this from siblings like search_ai_projects or compare_ai_projects, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose compose_ai_stack over the sibling tools such as search_ai_projects, compare_ai_projects, or find_alternatives. The phrase 'candidate stack' weakly implies a use case, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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