analyze_architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function (analyze, detect, return) without explaining side effects, read-only status, error handling, or what exactly 'validation rules' means. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action ('Analyze project architecture'). Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description must carry the full context. It covers the main function but leaves key details unexplained, such as what 'validation rules' are, how they are returned, and any prerequisites or limitations. This makes it adequate but incomplete.

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 schema already provides a description for the 'path' parameter (100% coverage). Since there is only one parameter and its meaning is fully documented in the schema, the description adds no additional param semantic value. Baseline 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?

The description states a clear verb ('analyze') and resource ('project architecture'), and adds expected outputs (detect language, return validation rules). It does not explicitly distinguish from find_similar_code, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that a 4 is appropriate.

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 implies its usage by stating what it does, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus find_similar_code, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. This is a case of implied usage.

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