ArchiMate vs TOGAF

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It says what the tool is about but not what the tool does behaviorally — whether it returns a static explanation, generates a tailored comparison, or has side effects. The absence of any mention of output format, prerequisites, or limitations leaves the agent to infer that this is a read-only informational query.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core concept ('棲み分け' / how they relate). Each listed topic earns its place, and the bilingual format, while duplicative, serves a multilingual audience. The English portion is dense and well-organized with a clear progression from roles to usage to pitfalls to minimal combination.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key content areas well enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope. However, it lacks behavioral context such as the type of response (explanatory text, structured summary, etc.) and any limitations. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is adequate but not 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?

The only parameter, lang, is fully documented in the schema with an enum, a default, and a bilingual description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the lang parameter, which is acceptable because the schema already covers it. The baseline of 3 applies here since the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 subject (TOGAF vs ArchiMate) and the specific aspects covered: role distinction, when to use which, common mistakes, and minimum combination. The verb 'relate' and the phrase 'how combining them goes wrong' make the tool's function understandable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like compare_with_togaf or map_togaf_to_archimate, so differentiation is not fully explicit, but the conceptual focus is distinct.

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 includes 'when to reach for which' as a topic, but this refers to choosing between TOGAF and ArchiMate, not to when this tool should be selected over sibling tools. There is no explicit guidance about what kind of request should route here versus to compare_with_togaf, map_togaf_to_archimate, or reference. Use cases are implied only by the subject matter.

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