get_architecture_summary

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, destructive, idempotent hints. The description adds that the tool returns a composite overview and does not require prior indexing, which goes beyond annotations but does not detail all behavioural aspects like potential limitations or output structure.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and contains no superfluous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions the key components of the composite overview (health grade, layer dependency analysis, file metrics). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its function and limitations.

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% as the single parameter 'repo_path' has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is deprecated and provides a specific alternative. It also describes the output as a composite architecture overview combining health grade, layer dependency analysis, and file metrics, which is a specific verb+resource.

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 advises to use get_architecture_health with detail_level='full' instead, providing a clear when-not-to-use directive. Additionally, 'No prior indexing required' gives a usage prerequisite.

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