Suggest Components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this ('The tool only reads — it does not write component cards') and adds real context beyond annotations: the ranking signal is in-degree, already-covered files are excluded, and results are candidates requiring human/agent judgment rather than authoritative boundaries.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool computes and how it ranks, then use-cases, then a caution, then parameters — a logical order with no filler sentences. Slightly longer than strictly necessary (the read-only point is stated twice across description and annotations), keeping it off a 5.

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, and the description implies the return shape (ranked list of uncovered high-in-degree files, capped by limit) and the decision workflow. That is sufficient for correct invocation, though the exact fields of a suggestion entry are left implicit.

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 group, project, and limit are already documented with types, bounds, and defaults. The description restates the limit default and max and clarifies that project scopes to 'one project in the group', but adds no new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('suggest candidate components to record') and precisely describes the mechanism: symbol-graph in-degree over indexed code, restricted to files not already covered by a component card. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like arch_record_component and arch_list.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers (initialising the arch layer for a group, after a large refactor) and contrasts with the alternative behaviour it replaces ('instead of guessing where the boundaries are'). It also spells out the follow-up action ('call arch_record_component for the ones you do') and warns that high-degree files may be utilities rather than components.

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