architecture_analyze

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the analysis areas but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, whether a studio context is required, or what the output looks like. For an analysis tool, the lack of output-related behavior is a notable gap.

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 with no filler. The HIGH_LEVEL qualifier immediately sets expectations and the rest stays focused on the core purpose. Every word 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the result of the analysis is, but it does not. It also does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling analysis tools. The no-parameter signature makes it easy to invoke, but the missing return-value and selection context leave an incomplete picture.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's topical focus gives context about what the analysis covers, but no parameter mapping is needed.

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 ('performs architectural analysis') and a clear topical scope (server-client communication boundaries, security gaps, shared state patterns). It is distinguishable from siblings like architecture_plan, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them. The HIGH_LEVEL qualifier adds a useful scope signal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as architecture_plan, project_analyze, or scene_analyze. The HIGH_LEVEL tag hints at a broad analysis context, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided. An agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the bare description.

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