check_architecture_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavior. It does disclose that the tool evaluates a graph and returns violations, which suggests a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state that no files are modified, what happens when the optional configuration is missing, or what 'actionable' means in terms of return shape.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, the configuration file is named, and the expected output is mentioned. Every part 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?

The description covers the core purpose and output, but because both params are optional and there is no output schema, it should clarify default behavior and what the caller should expect when parameters are omitted. It also leaves the term 'actionable' undefined, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether the result is sufficient.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context by connecting the config path to .symbiontrc.yaml and tying the workspace root to the scan scope. It does not need to repeat schema details.

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, 'Evaluates the dependency graph', and identifies the resource, 'declarative architectural rules (.symbiontrc.yaml)'. It also describes the output, 'actionable boundary violations', making it clear that this tool checks rules rather than just retrieving data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependency_graph.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is used when dependency-graph information needs to be evaluated against architectural rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the wording implies it is for validation rather than inspection. A small gap is that it does not mention get_dependency_graph as the alternative for raw graph inspection.

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