get_architecture_map

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has performance implications, or any side effects. The statement only covers return value, leaving important behaviors implicit.

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 sentence, no unnecessary words. It is concise, though it might benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating purpose and output format).

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not elaborate on the returned graph structure (e.g., nodes, edges, properties). Given the complexity of a 'graph topology', the description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about the response.

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 single parameter 'depth' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what depth controls or how it affects the output. The default value of 1 is noted, but its semantic meaning is absent.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Returns'), resource ('CodeNode graph topology'), and output format ('as a JSON string'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other code analysis features.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_dependency_chain or get_symbol_context). The description only states what it does, without context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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