architecture_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the path parameter behavior and defaults but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or safety (e.g., read-only nature). It adequately describes what the tool does but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by an args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 a single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and relevant path behaviors. No additional context is needed for effective invocation.

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% for the single parameter, but the description provides clear semantics: 'Repo path to analyze. Relative to the server's working directory (or MCP_ARCHITECT_ROOT if set). Defaults to the whole project.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'high-level map of a codebase' including 'languages, frameworks, size, structure, and entry points.' It also suggests starting here for unfamiliar repos, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like dependency_graph, explain, and hotspots.

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 advises to 'Start here to understand an unfamiliar repo,' giving clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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