archy_graph_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implicitly indicates a read operation and adds value by noting cost savings. However, it does not explicitly state idempotence or lack of side effects, which would be ideal for a summary tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, zero waste. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise 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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's summary nature, the description covers key aspects. However, parameter details are missing, and the description does not elaborate on the return format beyond the output schema. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%—no parameter details in the description. While top_n is implied, the path parameter is not explained. The description partially compensates by mentioning 'top-N modules', but a full compensation would require explicit parameter semantics.

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 it provides a 'whole-project structural overview sized for LLM context' and lists specific outputs (top-N modules by fan-in, fan-out, PageRank, top external dependencies). It distinguishes from siblings like archy_graph (full graph) and archy_cycles (cycle detail).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'cheaper than dumping the full graph; use for where is the gravity in this codebase questions.' Also directs to call archy_cycles separately for cycle detail, providing clear alternatives.

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