marm_graph_architecture

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 the failure mode: 'graph-unavailable error if the graph backend is disabled or failed to start', and also notes that omitting the project parameter auto-resolves. This gives the agent useful expectations for both success and error cases.

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?

Compact and well-organized: purpose in the first line, a clarifying sentence, then a parameter list and a returns line. Uses whitespace effectively and has no filler.

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?

Covers input, output (graph architecture response), and failure mode (graph-unavailable error). Without an output schema, it doesn't detail the response structure, but for an orientation tool this is a minor gap; the description is sufficient for basic invocation and expectation setting.

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 schema only defines a nullable string with a default. The description adds critical meaning: 'project name; omit to auto-resolve' clarifies the parameter's purpose and the behavior when omitted, which is far beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 'High-level architecture overview: node/edge breakdown, modules, and schema' – a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like graph_trace or graph_impact. The noun phrase 'architecture overview' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'one-shot orientation for a project', implying use when a high-level understanding is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools plus the 'orientation' wording makes the intended use case clear.

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