review_architecture

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the review is heuristic, that findings are bounded by diagram content, and what the output contains (score, grade, recommendations).

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the return contract second; nothing is padding. Minor formatting noise from the mid-sentence line break, but information density is high.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the review dimensions are listed. However, given the deeply nested DiagramSpec input, the description never signals the input's shape or required fields, leaving a gap for the caller.

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?

Only one parameter (spec) and the description only refers to it obliquely as "a spec". With reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not compensate by explaining that a full DiagramSpec with nodes/edges/clusters is required, so an agent must open the schema to build a valid call.

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 and resource ("Heuristic Well-Architected review of a spec") and names the four review dimensions plus the return shape (score, grade, findings). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from validate_diagram, which is the closest sibling and a plausible confusion point.

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 caveat "Findings reflect only what the diagram shows" gives useful context about what the review can and cannot see, but there is no statement of when to choose this over validate_diagram or after generate_architecture_diagram. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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