get_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, which is consistent with the tool's name. However, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as potential performance implications, caching behavior, or prerequisites like repository indexing. The description is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the expected output format and parameter usage. It covers the what but not the how (e.g., how to specify aspects, what the output looks like). This leaves the agent without enough information to utilize the tool effectively.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions. The tool description does not mention the parameters ('project' and 'aspects') at all, nor does it explain how they map to the listed elements (packages, services, etc.). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a high-level architecture overview, specifying packages, services, dependencies, and project structure. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('architecture overview'), and the phrase 'at a glance' implies a summary. This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_code_snippet' or 'search_code' which target more granular details.

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 broad architectural context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed externally, but no rationale is given for preference. For example, it doesn't state that for detailed code-level information, one should use 'get_code_snippet' or 'search_code'.

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