marm_graph_architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions possible error conditions ('graph-unavailable error') and the return type, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Behavior is partially disclosed.

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 three sentences, each with clear value: purpose, context, and parameter details. No redundant information. Emoji adds visual flair without harming clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers input, output (architecture overview), and error handling. However, it could be more specific about the output format (e.g., JSON structure).

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 explains the single parameter 'project' and clarifies that omitting it triggers auto-resolution. This adds value beyond the input schema, which only defines the parameter as optional string with no further documentation.

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 it provides a high-level architecture overview including node/edge breakdown, modules, and graph schema. It distinguishes from sibling tools like marm_graph_impact and marm_graph_trace by focusing on overall orientation rather than specific analyses.

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 phrase 'One-shot orientation for a project' implies it's for initial understanding, but no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like marm_graph_impact or marm_graph_trace is provided. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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