Squad Architect

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

Describes routing to a specific reviewer, delegated execution returning Coordinator persona, routing, and dispatch request. Notes tier eligibility. No annotations, so description carries burden; lacks auth or side-effect details but sufficient.

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 main purpose, then details. Sentences are efficient; could be slightly tighter but no waste.

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 purpose, usage, return value, and main parameters. No output schema but explains output conceptually. Adequate for 7-param tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: context param as 'existing design, constraints, IaC', squad param references state directory, and optional profiles listed.

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 runs the architecture stage, routes to a system architecture reviewer for design review, and lists use cases ('architecture', 'system design', 'components'). It also distinguishes from sibling by mentioning the Azure architect alternate.

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 states when to use ('for architecture, system design, or components requests') and contrasts with an alternate role (Azure HLD/LLD). No explicit when-not, but sibling list provides context.

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