architecture_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reviews for architectural compliance but doesn't disclose what it does with findings, whether it modifies files, what the output format is (report? commit?), or whether it requires prior setup. For what appears to be an analysis/review tool, the side-effect profile is unclear.

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 very short (one sentence) but the 'architecture' verb+resource lacks clarity about architectural domains. It's efficient but borderline under-specified, sitting between genuine conciseness and merely brief. The sentence is front-loaded with the action, but the parenthetical could be expanded to add value.

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?

With a 0-parameter tool, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole semantic carrier. It's unclear what 'code' refers to (all repository code? staged changes?), how findings are delivered, or what the compliance review process entails. Given the tool complexity (an architectural review presumably produces significant output), this is under-specified.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, with an empty schema). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies. The tool takes no explicit inputs, which is a relevant fact the description's sparse context indirectly conveys.

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 verb (Review) and resource (code) with a specific purpose (architectural compliance for DDD, Laravel patterns). It distinguishes from siblings like architecture_review_web which suggests a different platform target, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. The parenthetical makes the scope reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like architecture_review_web or when architecture review is appropriate in the workflow. The description implies it's the general/desktop variant but doesn't say when to choose this over architecture_review_web. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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