analyze_architecture

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns a pre-synthesized markdown narrative report, which is useful context. No contradictions; transparency is good but could mention if any side effects or caching occur.

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?

Two sentences: first explains the comprehensive nature and included analyses, second adds the key usage note about no indexing. Every sentence provides value, no wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (combining multiple analyses) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately sets expectations: what analyses are run, output format (markdown narrative), and a prerequisite (no indexing needed). It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (repo_path, detail_level with char limits, focus). The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs comprehensive architecture analysis by running health check, dependency analysis, design smell detection, and hotspot ranking in a single call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual analyses (e.g., get_architecture_health, get_design_smells, get_hotspots).

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 explicitly notes 'No prior indexing required,' which is a key usage guideline. It implies this is the all-in-one option, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual analysis tools or provide exclusions.

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