repo_get_architecture

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results come from actually scanning files (including Git state), but it says nothing about read-only safety, cost or time on large repositories, how maxFiles truncates results and whether the summary degrades, or caching. For a repo-wide scan with zero annotation coverage, these gaps are material.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited scope list and no filler; the grounding phrase 'from its real files' earns its place. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant or buried.

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 read-only summarization tool with no output schema and no annotations, the enumerated subject areas give an agent a reasonable idea of what comes back. However, it never indicates the shape of the result (structured sections? prose?), how much detail per area, or what happens on very large repos, leaving meaningful omissions.

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%, with both 'root' and 'maxFiles' documented including their defaults, so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no extra meaning about how scope or the file cap affects the summary, making the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb ('Summarize') plus concrete resource ('repository architecture'), with an enumerated scope: languages, build systems, binaries, symbol/config files, directory ownership and Git state. That enumeration lets an agent tell it apart from narrower siblings like repo_search_code or repo_find_dependencies, though no sibling is named 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 listed contents signal this is the high-level orientation tool rather than a targeted lookup, and 'from its real files' implies grounded, evidenced output. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as repo_inspect or build_analyze.

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