architect

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it fans out to a configured provider panel with an advisory persona, requires each provider's key/CLI, has rate limits, and returns a text-wrapped JSON envelope with a results array. This complements the readOnlyHint (true), destructiveHint (false), and openWorldHint (true) annotations effectively.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, 18 sibling tools), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral model, return format, and prerequisites (keys, rate limits). No gaps are apparent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about the advisory persona and fan-out behavior, but does not significantly enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a software architect for system design, tradeoff analysis, and complex decisions. It lists specific use cases (architecture, API/schema design, multi-service interactions, or after two failed fixes) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the 'expert' parameter's persona is overridden on named expert tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., architecture, complex decisions, fresh perspective after two failed fixes). It also indirectly advises against using it when a more specific expert tool is appropriate (since the persona is overridden). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, which would improve clarity.

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