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 only states the tool's function without disclosing any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects, or limitations. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with an Args line. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary parameter detail without waste. Every sentence is informative.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks comparison to sibling tools and does not explain the output beyond what the schema might provide. It is minimally complete but could be improved.

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 'path' is described as 'Absolute path to the repository root directory', which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only specifies type). The description clarifies the expected format and scope. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 it analyzes repository architecture, including layers, patterns (with examples), and module breakdown. While it distinguishes from some siblings like 'api_surface' or 'dependencies', it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling 'patterns', which could be seen as overlapping.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patterns' or 'full_extraction'. It does not specify prerequisites, scenarios where it is preferred, or when to avoid it. The usage context is only implied by the description.

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