detect_architecture

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a report with pattern, confidence score, evidence, layer map, and diagram. However, it does not specify side effects, required permissions, or limitations (e.g., supported project types).

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 relatively short but mixes Turkish and English, which may reduce clarity for some agents. The structure is standard (Args/Returns), but the initial Turkish sentence could be more universally accessible. No wasted words, but could be streamlined.

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 only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adds value by listing return fields. It is mostly complete for a detection tool, though it omits usage context and any dependencies on prior scans.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section clarifies the 'path' parameter as 'Proje kök dizini' (project root directory), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema type.

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 detects the architectural pattern of a project. The verb 'detects' and resource 'architecture' are specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'generate_architecture_diagram', but the purpose is distinct and clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context of use. It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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