architecture

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the tool groups files, shows import/call edges, and supports text or JSON output. It implies a read-only analysis, though it doesn't explicitly state non-destructive behavior or limitations.

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?

Description is brief, well-structured with separate parameter explanations, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool complexity and presence of output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers core functionality and parameters, though it could mention prerequisites or scope.

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%, but the description adds meaning for 'exclude_dirs' (comma-separated prefixes) and 'output_format' (text or JSON). 'repo_path' is not explained beyond default, but overall it compensates well.

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 explicitly states it produces a high-level architecture view with modules, roles, and inter-module dependencies. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dependencies' and 'file_map' by focusing on macro-level organization.

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?

Clearly states 'Use for understanding how the codebase is organized at a macro level.' Does not provide when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

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