get_architecture_advice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get advice' without revealing whether it scans existing files, calls an external model, or produces a report. There is no added context about side effects, permissions, or output format.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary information is included.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the advice looks like, any limitations, or how the language parameter affects the result. A simple tool still needs more context to be properly used.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only hints that 'requirements' is the input via 'based on requirements', but says nothing about the optional 'language' parameter or any format expectations. This is minimal compensation for the missing schema 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 architectural advice based on requirements, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools (none of which offer advice). The verb 'get' is a bit generic, but the resource 'architectural advice' is specific enough for a 4.

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 implies usage: when you have requirements and need architectural advice. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like analyze_project, so it only reaches an implied-level score.

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