list_architectural_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scope ('fluencyloop-tracked repo') and status ('resolved') but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, or the return format. The agent must infer safety and side effects solely from the verb 'List'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. It contains no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary details, earning every word.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It identifies the content (resolved architectural records with examples) but leaves ambiguity around what 'resolved' means and what the response structure looks like, which is a notable gap for a tool listing data.

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 is empty with 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. Baseline 4 applies since no additional parameter information is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'fluencyloop-tracked repo's resolved architectural records', including categories (concepts, principles, decisions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_drift and explain_record, which perform different actions.

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 action 'List' implies the use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over check_drift or explain_record, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb, not explicitly guided.

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