Recommend architecture rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds nothing. What does add value is the breakdown of the recommendation categories returned (enforce-now, reportOnly, review-before-enforce, common-adoption gaps), which tells the agent what the output contains since no output schema exists.

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 the verb and resource, then a colon-delimited enumeration of the four recommendation buckets. Dense but every clause carries information; the list is long but not padded.

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 zero-required-param, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the safety profile, and the shape of the recommendations returned. An agent has enough to call it correctly 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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'path' and its default. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning (e.g., monorepo vs single-app behavior of the path), so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Recommend) and resource (architecture rule set) and scopes the source as 'this repo's evidence and detected stack'. It never names archprint_scan or archprint_explain, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation from siblings, which caps this at 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 framing ('from its evidence and detected stack') implies this runs after a scan, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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