compare_architecture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context about using git worktree for safe non-destructive analysis and no prior indexing required, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, outputs, and key behavioral notes (safe worktree, no indexing). Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 4 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about purpose and safety. It hints at outputs but does not fully explain the output format or detail_level options. Slightly more output detail would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings or provide additional semantics beyond the schema. It mentions output specifics but not parameter details.

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 it compares architecture health between two git refs, listing specific outputs like metrics, grade changes, and smells. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_architecture_health (which likely gets current health) and analyze_architecture (which might analyze a single ref).

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 notes 'No prior indexing required,' indicating a key condition for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_architecture or get_architecture_trends. More explicit guidance on when to compare vs. single-ref analysis would improve this.

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