arch_analyze_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool analyzes and identifies patterns, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether any files are modified, whether authentication is required beyond the optional api_key, or what form the analysis result takes.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly determine the tool's core purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent can expect from a call. It does not describe the return format, the role of source_samples, whether api_key is ever required, or how the analysis results are presented. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation and result handling.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no additional semantic value about file_tree, source_samples, or api_key, which would be needed to push above the baseline.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('project structure'), and clearly states the intended outcome: identifying architectural patterns, layers, and dependencies. This is distinct from sibling generation tools like arch_generate_diagram and arch_generate_docs.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to analyze an existing project structure and extract architectural insights. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like arch_generate_diagram or arch_generate_docs.

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