it_ops_recommend_architecture

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

The description adds the routing context—'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'—which goes beyond the annotations by clarifying execution scope. However, it does not describe what the action actually does, what side effects may occur, or what output to expect. It does not contradict the annotations, so no flag.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. The routing detail and argument list are each one line, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It earns a high score for efficiency, though a brief semantic explanation of the action would improve it.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description remains incomplete for correct invocation: it gives no condition for when to call this action, no explanation of what 'recommend_architecture' accomplishes, and no example or input-structure detail. An agent would struggle to know what message or inputs to supply.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter semantics. It labels `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. But it stops there—there is no guidance on what structure `inputs` should follow or what kind of objective is expected.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `recommend_architecture`.' However, it never explains what the action does—it relies entirely on the action name to convey purpose. It also does not differentiate this from closely related sibling tools such as `it_ops_rightsizing_recommendations` or the generic `dispatch_domain_agent`.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no statement about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives to prefer. The description only gives mechanics (routes through the dispatcher) but no decision context for an agent.

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