design_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire transparency burden. It discloses the output components (Mermaid diagrams, component breakdown, deployment strategy, scaling plan), but it does not state whether this is a read-only planning operation, whether it modifies anything, or how required parameters such as real-time and multi-platform requirements shape the output.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then listing the specific artifacts produced. Every phrase 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?

For a design-planning tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the result will contain. It could be more complete by noting how inputs like scale or team_size influence the result, but the core selection and invocation context is adequately covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description itself does not explain parameters. The schema's field descriptions are terse but adequate, and the description does not add meaning beyond them.

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 names a specific action ('Design') and object ('system architecture') and lists concrete deliverables: Mermaid diagrams, component breakdown, deployment strategy, and scaling plan. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as design_database, design_api, or analyze_scalability.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of adjacent architecture/analysis tools. It implies use for early architecture design, but it never states exclusions or directs the agent to alternatives.

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