graph.get_architecture

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

No annotations provided; description implies a read-only operation ('Returns') but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, side effects, or permissions. With no annotations, the description should carry this burden but falls short.

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?

Single, clear sentence front-loading the purpose and key outputs. No wasted 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?

Tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown). Description explains return content adequately for a simple overview tool. However, it lacks detail on scope (e.g., entire codebase vs subset) and does not clarify relationship to siblings like graph.index.

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?

Input schema has no parameters (100% coverage implicitly). Description adds no extra parameter context because none exist. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, but description could clarify why no parameters are needed (e.g., 'Always returns the full codebase overview'). It does not, so 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a high-level overview of the parsed codebase, listing specific content (files, symbol counts, entry points). It distinguishes from siblings like graph.get_symbol by indicating it is high-level rather than detailed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., graph.get_symbol). No explicit context or prerequisites given.

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