architecture_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'pre-computed' implying a read-only, cached operation, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. Critical behavioral traits like freshness of summaries or error handling are omitted.

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 short, consisting of two sentences plus parameter notes. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'retrieve'. While concise, it could be better structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameters). There is no redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has 2 optional parameters and moderate complexity. The description covers the basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the three allowed values for 'scope' and notes that 'repo_path' is an optional absolute path. However, it does not describe the format of directory/file paths for scope, nor does it clarify what 'architectural summaries' contain. The description adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'pre-computed architectural summaries'. It provides parameter explanations, which help clarify the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dependency_graph' or 'subgraph', though the pre-computed nature is a distinguishing factor.

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 gives basic parameter guidance (scope values, repo_path optional), but lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues. The agent is left guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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