Детектор застарілої/відсутньої архітектурної документації

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive (never generates/rewrites docs), defines all four statuses, and reveals the two tracking methods (exact commit-count for write_doc-created docs vs coarse mtime fallback), which materially affects how an agent interprets results. Lacks a concrete return-format statement but is otherwise strong.

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?

Every clause earns its place—core behavior and statuses are front-loaded, then tracking methods, non-goal, and the points edge-case follow in rough priority order. Slightly dinged because it is one dense run-on paragraph where the important non-goal line and the points branching guidance are buried mid-text rather than structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates well by naming all four status categories, explaining both invocation modes (single root pair vs points), and covering the tracking-method distinction. The remaining gap is the absence of a concrete example or stated return format, which is minor for a status-check tool with fully self-documenting parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining when to pass points instead of projectsRoot/docsRoot (scattered independent root/doc pairs, e.g., a repo moved out of ~/Projects) and by clarifying trackingMethod semantics tied to how documents are processed.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Перевіряє актуальність') with a specifiic resource (архітектurнa documentatіon per git repo) and enumerates the four outcome catеgorіes (missing/stаle/current/no-commits). The non-goal statement 'НЕ генерує/переписує документацію сам' explicitly disambiguates іt from the sibling write_doc.

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?

States the intended usage context clearly: it tells the agent where to look so the assistant writes/updates purposefully instead of re-reading everything each session. The explicit non-goal ('НЕ генерує/переписує документацію сам') implicitly routes writing to write_doc, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given for sweep_status or check_release_drift.

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