review_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — the tool returns a structured prompt rather than an analysis result — which is unusual and valuable. However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, determinism, or output shape, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most important and surprising fact (it returns a prompt, not findings) is placed second where it is easily read. Every clause 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and the description does not specify what the returned structured prompt looks like or how to consume it, nor does it distinguish the tool from its many review-adjacent siblings. The 'returned prompt' behavior is disclosed but not elaborated, leaving an agent under-informed for routing and follow-through.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the enum for componentType and examples for concerns. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Review an existing architecture') and scopes the domains checked (scalability, reliability, security, operability). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like review_code or review_infra_config, which overlap as 'review' tools, but the enumeration of architecture types and concern dimensions makes the intent clear.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this description when to pick review_architecture over review_infra_config or review_code, despite obvious surface overlap among the sibling review tools.

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