plan_architecture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool uses stored data from a previous step and generates multiple outputs. However, it does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral unknowns.

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 concise, using bullet points for clarity and an emphasized note for the prerequisite. It front-loads the phase and role, making it easy to scan. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description covers the generated items thoroughly. However, it omits details about the return format or how the outputs are structured, which would help an agent fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add significant new insight into parameter usage beyond repeating the override behavior. It adds marginal value.

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 identifies the tool as a system architect phase that generates technology stack decisions, component maps, file structure, interactivity plan, and routing strategy. It specifies the input (project scope from analyze_project) and outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like design_theme or select_components.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Run analyze_project first.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not list when not to use it or alternatives, but the single important guideline is well communicated.

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