recommend_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substantive behavior: the tool returns a structured prompt containing architecture decisions, a text component diagram, data flow, scaling strategy, failure modes, and a decision log. It does not state whether anything is persisted or what permissions are needed, but for a generative, side-effect-free tool the disclosed output shape is meaningful context beyond the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the return contents follow immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what the structured prompt will contain, and all five input params are covered by the schema. The only material gap is routing guidance against sibling design/review tools, which does not affect call correctness.

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 all five parameters (goal, cloud, currentState, nonFunctional, scaleRequirements) are already well documented with examples. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Recommend a scalable system design') with the scope qualifier 'for a stated goal'. It clearly distinguishes design recommendation from the sibling review_architecture, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes a design goal plus optional current-state/constraints and produces a design. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion pointing to review_architecture for existing systems or generate_implementation_plan for execution detail.

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