Scan architecture rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the output semantics: each rule is stated in plain words with an AUTO vs SUGGEST confidence classification, conform/break file counts, offending files, and a confidence value. The only gap is that it doesn't discuss runtime behavior such as cost or duration.

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 core action and resource, then the output contents, then the read-only note and default behavior. It is dense but every clause carries information; the comma-heavy enumeration of output fields makes it slightly harder to skim than it could be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so thoroughly (rule text, AUTO/SUGGEST, conform/break counts, offending files, confidence). Combined with the annotation-backed read-only guarantee and the documented defaults, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the missing sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: `path` defaults to "." and a monorepo root scans every app, which materially changes what a call returns. `deep` is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given the schema documents it fully.

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 ('List') and resource ('the architecture rules this TypeScript repo already follows') plus the shape of the result. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts itself with the siblings archprint_recommend or archprint_explain, so an agent must infer the boundary between scanning existing rules and getting recommendations or explanations.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool reports rules the repo 'already follows,' which suggests auditing an existing codebase, and it notes that a monorepo root scans every app. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to archprint_recommend/archprint_explain for the adjacent tasks.

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