getArchitectureContext

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation (architectural overview). It adds value by stating the return type ('structured query plan') and the prerequisite (codebase-memory connected). No contradictions; behavior is adequately disclosed beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence captures purpose and scope, the second adds prerequisites and return information. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and high schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return type ('structured query plan'), and a key prerequisite. The 'structured query plan' could be more specific, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple read tool with two parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('aspects' and 'maxNodes'). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning the return type. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already provides full parameter 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 the tool provides an 'architectural overview via codebase-memory graph' with specific aspects (module boundaries, dependencies, ADRs, hotspot files). This verb-resource pair is distinct from sibling tools like getDependencyTree or getProjectContext, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires codebase-memory connected' but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getDependencyTree, getProjectContext). There is no when-not-to-use or alternative naming, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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