architecture_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the workflow nature and the structured outputs returned. However, it does not state whether the tool mutates any state, whether it requires existing context, or how it interacts with the broader workspace, leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the [WORKFLOW] tag and a crisp verb, naming both inputs and outputs. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the input, the output categories, and the workflow nature. Without an output schema, describing the three return components is valuable. It could add a sentence about when to use it relative to related planning/implementation tools, but this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single goal parameter. The description adds a concrete example and ties the goal to architecture planning, but this is modest value beyond the structured field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plans') and resource ('new game architecture or major feature'), and clarifies the deliverable: structured steps, affected services, and verification plans. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like architecture_analyze (analysis of existing) and feature_implement (implementation).

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 usage for new architecture/feature planning, and the [WORKFLOW] tag suggests it is part of a planning sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like architecture_analyze, feature_implement, or game_create_from_spec, nor does it provide when-not guidance.

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