Generate Architecture Documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the overview is narrated but fact-traceable and that graphs/lists are rendered deterministically, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the tool writes to the filesystem, overwrites existing files, or what happens if ADRs are missing.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds specific detail about outputs and reliability. 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?

The description explains what content is generated and notes deterministic behavior, but it lacks operational details such as whether it overwrites files, requires a valid project structure, or if any of the listed inputs (ADRs) are mandatory. Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more practical guidance is needed.

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 description never mentions the single required parameter 'projectPath'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides no guidance on the expected value or constraints beyond the schema's bare minimum length, leaving the parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 generates Architecture.md with specific content sources: layers/modules from directory structure, dependency graph from relative imports, design-pattern evidence from class names, tech stack, and ADRs. This distinguishes it from sibling documentation tools like generate_readme or generate_changelog.

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 use for generating architecture documentation grounded in real project facts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_readme or generate_changelog, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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