Explain an architecture rule

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so concretely: it enumerates statement, gate status, adoption mode, conformance and confidence floor, all offending files, plus the AP-001/AP-002 specific confidence-gate conditions, remediation steps and non-adoption guidance. 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint, but the payload disclosure goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence opens with the core action and then enumerates the payoff, so an agent gets the point immediately. The middle portion is a dense comma-run of returned fields that could be tightened, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the full return shape, the rule-specific special cases (AP-001/AP-002), and remediation content, while the annotations cover safety and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the result.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the label examples and the 'not a URL' clarification for path. The description reinforces but does not extend that information, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Explain one rule') plus resource ('from archprint_scan ... by its label') and gives concrete label examples (AP-002, env-access, "lib !-> app"). It also distinguishes itself from archprint_scan by noting that scan lists only a few breaking files while this returns every one.

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?

It clearly frames the input as a label obtained from archprint_scan and sets expectations for depth ('in depth', 'scan lists only a few'), which implies when to reach for it over scan. It does not, however, say anything about when to prefer archprint_check or archprint_recommend, so routing among all four siblings is only partially resolved.

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