archy_check

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the tool checks direct edges based on archy.yaml config and that empty lists indicate no violations. It does not mention state changes, but as a check tool, read-only behavior is implied. Adequate transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence gives the trigger and core functionality, the second explains output and alternative tool. Efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema exists and sibling tools are listed, the description covers essential context: when to use, what it returns, and how it relates to archy_contracts. Missing parameter explanations reduce completeness slightly, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'path' and 'config_path'. It mentions 'archy.yaml' but does not connect to the parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning. Fails to add value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to be called after Python import changes and to return direct layer violation edges. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'archy_contracts' by specifying that it handles direct edges while the sibling handles transitive checks.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Call after any Python edit that adds, removes, or changes an import statement.' It also provides context on when not to rely solely on this tool: 'pair with archy_contracts for transitive checks.'

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