Business architecture anti-patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a three-part structure (symptom, consequence, fix), implies a read-only informational behavior, and states both pre-build and review applications. It does not discuss edge cases or assumptions, but the behavior is straightforward and adequately transparent.

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 succinct, bilingual without redundancy, and front-loads the core value ('anti-patterns as symptom, consequence, fix') followed by the two use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, in what format, and when to use it. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter 'lang' has 100% schema coverage including an enum and a bilingual description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema fully documents the parameter. 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('recurring ways business architecture goes wrong') plus the output structure (symptom, consequence, fix). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling capability-map and review tools by focusing on anti-patterns rather than diagrams, methods, or checklists.

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 gives two usage contexts: before building and when reviewing an existing artefact. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the intended timing is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the many sibling tools.

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