get_architecture

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say what the 'architecture summary' contains, how large it is, whether 'native CBM' differs from anything else, or what detail=compact/full changes in behavior. Only the read-only nature is implied by 'Return'.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary resource front-loaded and the scope variant trailing. Nothing is wasted, though 'native CBM' is unexplained terminology rather than useful content.

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?

A 4-parameter architecture-query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions needs a description that covers the aspect/detail model and what comes back. One sentence leaves the agent unequipped to choose aspects or interpret the result.

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 0% across 4 parameters; the description only explains `project`. `path`, `detail` (compact/full) and especially `aspects` with 13 undocumented enum values (dependencies, hotspots, layers, clusters, etc.) get no meaning from either the schema or the description — a serious gap for a tool whose main purpose is aspect selection.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Return the native CBM architecture summary' with an explicit scope toggle ('space snapshot, or one project when project is provided'). It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like get_graph_schema or query_graph, and 'CBM' / 'native' are undefined jargon, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the many graph/code siblings (get_graph_schema, query_graph, search_graph, trace_path). The only usage-like clause ('when project is provided') is really a parameter behavior note, not guidance on selecting this tool.

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