check_architecture

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Review', which suggests a read-only inspection, but it does not disclose what is returned, whether any analysis is performed, whether it scans the filesystem, or what side effects might occur. Beyond the verb 'review', it adds little behavioral context.

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 words. It is not redundant with the schema, and every word adds meaning. However, it is slightly under-specified for the number of parameters and behavioral context needed, so it earns a high but not perfect conciseness score.

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?

This is a minimal tool with optional parameters and no output schema, so the description must do more to be self-sufficient. It tells the agent what is reviewed but not how to use cwd/depth, what the output format is, or what happens on failure. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly with confidence, the context is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented cwd and depth parameters. It does not mention either parameter, nor does it clarify how 'depth' interacts with directory traversal or what cwd defaults to. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no direct semantic support.

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 states a specific verb, 'Review', and names concrete targets: 'directory structure, monorepo indicators, and architectural conventions'. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_tests or check_linting, though 'architectural conventions' remains somewhat vague and no explicit mention of alternatives is made.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_codebase or check_branch. The generic 'Review ... architecture' wording implies an architecture-focused use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or stated conditions for choosing it.

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