check_boundaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to do so. It does not explain what verification entails, whether it reads or mutates state, what side effects may occur, or what the output format is. The verb 'Verify' gives a hint of read-only behavior, but that is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description lacks essential context: what criteria define boundary violations, how results are returned, and how this tool relates to adjacent tools. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would not know what to expect when invoking this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all parameter information implicitly. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and since there is nothing to document, the description does not need to add further parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and identifies a clear resource ('architectural boundaries between modules and layers'). It is distinct from sibling tools like detect_cycles or analyze_impact, though the notion of 'boundaries' could be more precise.

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. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is a bare statement of purpose with no usage context.

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