query_architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches and returns results at requested depth, which covers core behavior. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., no results, rate limits) or explicitly confirm read-only nature.

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 very concise: two sentences covering purpose and usage, plus an example-based parameter guide. No superfluous words, and front-loaded with the main action.

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 description is complete for a search tool given no output schema: it explains what is returned (module analysis at depth) and how to use parameters. However, it could briefly mention the return format (e.g., text summaries) to fully inform the agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value: for 'query' it provides examples; for 'depth' it explains each enum value with detail; for 'modules' it clarifies optionality and format. This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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 tool searches the architecture knowledge base and returns module analysis at a requested depth. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'features, patterns, or subsystems', which are not covered by sibling tools like search_patterns or trace_concern.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand how specific features, patterns, or subsystems are implemented.' This tells when to use the tool but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among sibling tools.

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