archy_graph

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it refuses serialization beyond a limit and explains why (context protection). It could explicitly state it's a read operation, but the dump nature implies no destructive side effects.

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 well-structured sentences: first states purpose and format, second adds behavioral caveat and alternatives. No wasted 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?

Given output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers the tool's main behavior, limits, and alternatives. Minor gap: no parameter descriptions beyond max_nodes, but path and internal_only are reasonably inferred.

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%, but the description only explains max_nodes, leaving path and internal_only unexplained. Users must infer their meaning from context or the command line analogy.

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 'Full dependency-graph dump' and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like archy_graph_focus and archy_graph_summary, making the tool's purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: use for full graph dumps, but prefer alternatives for most reasoning. It also explains the max_nodes limit and how to override it.

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